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

David E. Hill, ) Case No. 5:25-cv-11275-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Department of Social Services of ) South Carolina, ) ) Defendant. )

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Docs. 1; 14.] In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial proceedings. Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint was entered on the docket on August 21, 2025. [Doc. 1.] On October 25, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order requiring the case to be brought into proper form for service by September 15, 2025. [Doc. 8.] The Order warned that Plaintiff’s failure to provide the necessary information by the deadline could subject the case to dismissal. [Id.] Plaintiff, however, did not respond to the Court’s Order. Accordingly, on October 31, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. [Doc. 14.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 3.] Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time to do so has lapsed. 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,

, 270–71 (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

(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.,

(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” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report

of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, this action is summarily DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge December 4, 2025 Columbia, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.