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

Joseph B. Harris, ) Case No. 6:24-cv-03864-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Robert William Van-Pelt, III; Heath ) Copeland; Jordan Wallace; Sergeant ) Sellers, ) ) Defendants. ) ) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s pro se Amended Complaint [Doc. 21] and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 25]. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings. On October 16, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be summarily dismissed with prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. [Doc. 25.] 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. [Id. at 10.] Plaintiff’s objections were entered on the docket on October 28, 2024. [Doc. 29.] This matter is now ripe for consideration. 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. Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (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.,

(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” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Laurens County Detention Center, filed this action pursuant to § 1983 seeking injunctive relief and money damages and alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. [Doc. 21.] Plaintiff alleges that on January 11, 2024, Defendants put his life in danger by asking him to act as a criminal informant. [Id. at 6–7.] Plaintiff contends that when he refused to act as a criminal informant, he was illegally arrested, and he was not read his Miranda rights. [Id. at 5–7.] The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint. [Doc. 25.] The Magistrate Judge concluded that Younger abstention is appropriate in this case. [Id. at 4–8.] The Magistrate Judge also concluded that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim because it fails to make personal allegations against any of the named defendants; the Fifth Amendment does not prohibit an arrest or interrogation without a Miranda warning but instead provides that information obtained without a Miranda warning may not be used as evidence in a criminal trial; and the Amended Complaint fails to adequately allege a malicious prosecution claim. [Id. at 5–8.] In objecting to the Report, Plaintiff provides some additional factual allegations but fails to address the Report’s conclusions regarding Younger abstention and failure to state a claim. [Doc. 29.] Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution for a pro se party,

the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law. Upon such review, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge November 18, 2025 Greenville, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.