IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Joseph Booth, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-12394-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Noah Bridges; Unknown Agents of the ) Spartanburg Office, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Joseph Booth’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint filed pursuant to

. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations. On October 23, 2025, Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994). Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.

(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Report, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Stated plainly, it appears at this time that Plaintiff’s claim is subject to summary dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 6), and the Court dismisses this action without

prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge November 13, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina

2