Carol L. Hall v. Manager AT&T Sandhills; Dutch Fork Magistrate; Home Office...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Carol L. Hall, Civil Action No. 3:25-12747-CMC Plaintiff, vs. ORDER Manager AT&T Sandhills; Dutch Fork Magistrate; Home Office AT&T/Area Manager; Complaints/Clerk of Court, Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ pro se Complaint. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(c), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”).

On November 3, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the Complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 13. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if she failed to do so. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report. ECF No. 16.

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 the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court need only review the Report for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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.”) (citation omitted).

After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s submission, the court agrees with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Neither Plaintiff’s Complaint nor her objections address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. In her objections, Plaintiff appears to assert sexual harassment “of all parties involved” and may argue the Dutch Fork Magistrate refused to complete her case.

ECF No. 16 at 1. She attaches documents showing a debit card statement with AT&T bill payments and what appears to be a bill from AT&T. ECF No. 16-1. However, no explanation of diversity or federal question jurisdiction appears within. And no additional basis for jurisdiction appears in the Complaint.

Accordingly, the court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference. Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina November 25, 2025