IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION

John Bernard Robinson, ) Case No. 1:25-cv-08190-DCC-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) SCDC, Leon Morrell, Bart Vincent, ) Sandra Bowie, Felicia McKie, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleging violations of his civil rights pursuant to

. ECF No. 15. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On September 25, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Defendant SCDC be dismissed from this action.1 ECF No. 24. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.2

1Service of process was authorized as to the remaining Defendants by separate order.

2 The Report was mailed on September 25, 2025. ECF No. 25. On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a notice of change of address. There is no indication, such as a return envelope, that Plaintiff did not receive the Report. 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 the Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The

Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See

Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” (citation omitted)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s

recommendation. Defendant SCDC is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge November 6, 2025 Spartanburg, South Carolina