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

Eric L. Johnson, ) Case No.: 8:25-cv-06848-JD-WSB ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER AND OPINION Bamberg County Detention Center, Captain ) Moes Cheatham, Sgt. Haton, Sgt. Roy ) Brooks, Sheriff Norris Williams, ) ) Defendants. ) )

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge William S. Brown (DE 12), made in accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina. The Report is about the Magistrate Judge’s initial review of pro se Plaintiff Eric L. Johnson’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint.1 (DE 1.) A. Background The Report comprehensively sets forth the factual allegations and legal framework, which the Court adopts by reference and summarizes briefly below for context.

1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions.

(b)(1). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis sued Bamberg County Detention Center, Captain Moes Cheatham, Sgt. Haton, Sgt. Roy Brooks, and Sheriff Norris Williams (collectively “Defendants”) under

. Plaintiff alleges

that while incarcerated at the Bamberg County Detention Center, he was subjected to unsanitary and unsafe living conditions, including bed bugs, roaches and other insect infestations, mold, and rusty water. (DE 1 at 4-6.) After reporting these issues, Plaintiff claims he was placed in solitary confinement and later transferred to a “23 and 1” facility. Plaintiff contends he suffered from bug bites and asserts that the conditions are “deadly”. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks $45,000 in compensatory damages and $35,000 in punitive damages. (Id.)

By Order dated July 11, 2025, the Court notified Plaintiff that, upon screening in accordance with

and 1915A, the Complaint was subject to summary dismissal for the reasons identified by the Court in its Order. (DE 8.) The Court noted, however, that Plaintiff might be able to cure the deficiencies in the Complaint and granted Plaintiff twenty-one days to file an amended complaint. (Id. at 6-7.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the time prescribed.

B. Report and Recommendation On August 6, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (DE 12) advising that the action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. In the alternative, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim and recommended that no further amendment be permitted, and that no service of process be authorized. Plaintiff filed no objections. C. Legal Standard In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). The Court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005). D. Conclusion The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (DE 12). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed without prejudice in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. C) ssaphm dees Some Joseph Dawson, III United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina November 20, 2025

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from this date under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.