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

Marialina Tillman, ) ) Case No. 7:25-cv-10359-JDA Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) CGR SGB HON, LLC, d/b/a ) Spartanburg Honda; Exeter ) Finance, LLC, d/b/a Exeter Finance, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Docs. 1; 18.] In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald for initial review pursuant to

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint was entered on the docket on August 11, 2025. [Doc. 1.] Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges violations of the Military Lending Act, breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and common law fraud and misrepresentation arising out the repossession of her vehicle. [Id. at 5.] On September 9, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order instructing Plaintiff to bring her case into proper form. [Doc. 7.] The Magistrate Judge warned Plaintiff that failure to bring her case into proper form within the time permitted by the Order would result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the Court. [Id. at 1.] On September 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, but the proposed service documents were not completed correctly. [Docs. 10; 11.] On October 24, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a second Order instructing Plaintiff to bring her case into proper form. [Doc. 13.] Again, the Magistrate Judge warned

Plaintiff that failure to bring her case into proper form within the time permitted by the Order would result in a recommendation of dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the Court. [Id. at 1.] On November 3, 2025, the Order dated October 24, 2025, was returned to the Court as undeliverable. [Doc. 15.] To date, Plaintiff has not advised the Court of any changes to her address or responded to the October 24, 2025, Order. On November 12, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 18.] 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. [Id. at 7.] Plaintiff has not filed 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 this Court. 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). 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, Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge

December 16, 2026 Spartanburg, 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.