IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Contrina Lacretrica Bell, C/A No. 3:25-cv-12912-SAL

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER South Carolina State Housing Finance and Development Authority and D’Alberto, Grahm & Grimsley, LLC,

Defendant.

This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges made in accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The Report recommends this case be summarily dismissed for many reasons, including that it is duplicative and frivolous and because the court is compelled to abstain from interfering in state court proceedings. [ECF No. 12.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if she failed to do so.

. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has expired. 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. See Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part.

(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error and adopts the Report, ECF No. 12, and incorporates it by reference herein. As a result, this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Additionally, Plaintiff's motion to supplement the pleadings, ECF No. 8, and her motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, ECF No. 5, are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Sherr x. December 5, 2025 Shern A. Lydon don Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge