Pierrie Brisbane v. W. Shepherd, Bailiff; and Charleston County Sheriff’s Office

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Pierrie Brisbane, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-6583-BHH v. ) ) ORDER W. Shepherd, Bailiff; and ) Charleston County Sheriff’s Office, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Pierrie Brisbane’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se amended complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 20.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.

On November 17, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss this action without further leave to amend. (ECF No. 21.) In the Report, the Magistrate Judge explained that the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983 and that Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to allege a plausible constitutional violation against Defendant Shepherd. (Id. at 5-8.) 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, 423 U.S. 261 (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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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., 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Here, no objections to the Report have been filed. After review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 21), and the Court dismisses this action without further leave to amend for the reasons set forth in the Report.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge December 9, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina