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

Sonalben Prajapati, ) C/A No.: 3:25-4825-MGL-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. )

) Director of United States ) REPORT AND Citizenship and Immigration ) RECOMMENDATION Services, ) ) ) Defendant. )

Plaintiff commenced this action with the filing of a complaint on June 3, 2025. [ECF No. 1]. On August 13, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. [ECF No. 11]. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to ,

(4th Cir. 1975), advising her of the importance of the motion and of the need for her to file an adequate response by September 15, 2025. [ECF No. 12]. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if she failed to respond adequately, the motion may be granted. Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s order, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendant’s motion. On September 24, 2025, the court ordered Plaintiff to advise by October 7, 2025, whether she wished to continue with this case. [ECF No. 14]. Plaintiff was further advised that if she failed to respond, the undersigned would recommend this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff filed no response. As such, it appears to the court that she does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this case. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams,

, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. PP Ut Slalger October 15, 2025 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n 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.’” ,

(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation.

(b)(1); ,

(1985); ,

(4th Cir. 1985); ,

(4th Cir. 1984).