Es

SouTe.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION DEMETRIC LEVON BOYD, § Plaintiff, § § vs. § Civil Action No.: 0:25-4001-MGL § INMATE CARL PETERSON, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, SUMMARILY DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DEEMING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S REMAINING MOTIONS Plaintiff Demetric Levon Boyd (Boyd), who is representing himself, brought this civil action against Defendant Inmate Carl Peterson (Peterson). He purports to assert a claim under

. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the Court summarily dismiss this case for failure to comply with a Court order and lack of prosecution. The Report was made in accordance with

and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court

may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.

(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on July 2, 2025. The Clerk of Court docketed Boyd’s objections on August 11, 2025. The Court has reviewed the objections but holds them to be

without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly. Here, Boyd has failed to present any specific objections to the Report. Boyd acknowledges he neglected to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s deadline to amend his complaint and states this was due to an inability to access his personal property. But, after the Magistrate Judge afforded Boyd numerous opportunities to address the jurisdictional deficiencies in his complaint, he has failed to do so. The Court is therefore unable to discern any clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s determination this matter should be summarily dismissed. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed the Report and the record de novo. Suffice it to say, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of Boyd’s complaint. The Court will thus overrule Boyd’s objections.

Further, inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge warned Boyd of the consequences of failing to file specific objections, Report at 3, he has waived appellate review. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

, 508–09 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding general objections are insufficient to preserve appellate review). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Boyd’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As a result of the Court’s ruling, Boyd’s remaining motions are NECESSARILY DEEMED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 24th day of November 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Boyd is hereby notified of his right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.