IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Brandon Huertas Case No. 2:25-cv-00911-SAL-MGB

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Daniella Winn; Jennifer Lawson; Jeremy Lauzon; William Anderson; Sandy Lowe; and Marcus Rhodes,

Defendants.

Brandon Huertas (“Huertas”), proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking relief pursuant to

based on events that occurred when he was a pretrial detainee in South Carolina. Before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by Daniella Winn and Jennifer Lawson (collectively, “Defendants”). [ECF No. 32.] United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker reviewed this case pursuant to

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) and issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending Defendants’ motion be denied. [ECF No. 40.] As stated in the report, Huertas’ complaint meets the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and should not be dismissed.

at 5–9. Attached to the Report was a notice advising the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so.

. No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part.

(b)(1). Absent objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, ADOPTS the Report, ECF No. 40, and incorporates it by reference. As a result, Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 32 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Shure t. November 4, 2025 Shern A. Lydon Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge’