IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Kemontea Washington, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action No. 9:25-cv-5625-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Director of the Berkeley County ) Detention Center, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Kemontea Washington’s (“Petitioner”) pro se petition filed pursuant to

. (ECF No. 1.) In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. On September 12, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a proper form order giving Petitioner the opportunity to bring his case into proper form, but the order was returned with notations of “return to sender,” “unable to forward,” and “released.” (ECF No. 6.) Next, on October 31, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining Petitioner’s claims and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return because the Court lacks jurisdiction as he is no longer a pretrial detainee, and, to the extent Petitioner is still a pretrial detainee, Younger abstention is appropriate under the circumstances. (ECF No. 8.) Additionally, the Magistrate Judge noted that Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to bring the case into proper form. (Id.) 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 no objections to the Report have been filed, 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. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 8), and the Court summarily dismisses this petition without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return for the specific reasons outlined in the Report.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge November 20, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina

3