IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Kaprina Glenn, ) Case No. 8:24-cv-07694-JDA Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) OPINION AND ORDER Foothills Property Management, LLC, ) ) Respondent. ) )

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 8.] In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William S. Brown for pre-trial proceedings. Kaprina Glenn (“Petitioner”) removed the underlying eviction action to this Court from Anderson Summary Court (case number 2024-CV-0410103981) on December 27, 2024. [Doc. 1.] On January 6, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the matter be summarily dismissed and remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [Doc. 8.] The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 11.] Instead of filing objections, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the Fourth Circuit on January 27, 2025 [Doc. 13], which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on July 28, 2025 [Doc. 20] with the mandate issuing on August 19, 2025 [Doc. 21]. Since that time, Petitioner has neither filed objections to the Report nor sought more time to do so. 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)). Out of an abundance of caution for the pro se Petitioner, the Court has reviewed

the record, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge de novo. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Anderson Summary Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge December 16, 2025 Greenville, 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.