IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Justin Jamal Lewis, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 8:25-213-BHH v. ) ) ORDER A/W Thomas, Robinson, Smith, Robert ) Sherriell, Coker, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Justin Jamal Lewis’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for a preliminary injunction, captioned as a “motion for reparative injunction and preventative injunction.” (ECF No. 125.) In accordance with

(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 7, 2025, Magistrate Judge William S. Brown issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion, explaining that Plaintiff’s motion is repetitive and unsupported and finding that Plaintiff has not made a clear showing of the elements required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

(2008). (ECF No. 140.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising the parties 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.1 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,

(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.

(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.,

(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, because no objections to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed

the record, the applicable law, and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. As the Magistrate Judge correctly determined, Plaintiff has not made the requisite clear showing of the elements necessary for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report

1 The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff has filed a number of motions since the filing of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, to include, three motions for investigation, a motion for the Court to deny any request for extension of dispositive motions, a motion for sanctions of disbarment and public reprimand, a motion to compel, a motion for protective order, and a motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150, 155, 157, 158.) The Magistrate Judge denied a number of these motions in an order entered on December 1, 2025. (ECF No. 153.) After reviewing Plaintiff’s motions, the Court finds nothing in them to alter the Court’s analysis of the Magistrate Judge’s Report. 2 (ECF No. 140); and the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 125). IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge December 10, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina

3