Robert Antonio Clayton v. Sgt. Krystal Spencer, Cpl. Kiene

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Robert Antonio Clayton, Case No. 9:25-cv-6147-RMG Plaintiff, v. ORDER Sgt. Krystal Spencer, Cpl. Kiene, Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate Judge recommending that this case be dismissed for failure to bring the case into proper form and a failure to state a federal claim upon which relief could be granted. (Dkt. No. 8). Plaintiff was advised that he had 14 days to file written objections to the R & R and a failure to do so would result in limited clear error district court review and a waiver of the right to file an appeal of the district court’s decision. (Id. at 6). No written objections have been timely filed.

I. Background Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Greenville County Detention Center, alleged violations of prison policy by covering the windows of his cell. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge directed the Plaintiff to bring his case into proper form by either paying the filing fee or completing the application to proceed without payment and completing other forms providing information regarding the named Defendants. The Plaintiff failed to respond to the Proper Form Order. The Magistrate Judge recommended the dismissal of this action without prejudice, without leave to amend and without issuance or service of process because of the failure to respond to the Proper Form Order and to state a federal claim upon which relief could be granted. (Dkt. No. 8). As previously mentioned, Plaintiff filed no response to the R & R. II. Legal Standard A. Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, “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.” See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation and punctuation omitted).

B. Pro Se Pleadings This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. for City of Balt., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).

III. Discussion The Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that this action should be dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiff had failed to bring his case into proper form and failed to state a federal claim upon which relief could be granted.

IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R as the Order of the Court (Dkt.

No. 8), and DISMISSES this action without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance or service of process.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge November 6, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina