psEs DISTR lp ey > <3

@ ae AS osu”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION MARSHALL LEON WATKINS, § Plaintiff, § § VS. § Civil Action No. 0:25-10369-MGL § SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF § CORRECTIONS DENTAL OFFICE and § DENTIST, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE EXTENT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER, SUMMARILY DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DEEMING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS Plaintiff Marshall Leon Watkins (Watkins), a state prisoner who is representing himself, filed this civil action against the above-named Defendants, alleging violations of his constitutional rights under

. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the Court summarily dismiss this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Magistrate Judge also proposes the Court deny Watkins’s remaining motions. The Report was made in accordance with

and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.

(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on October 29, 2025. To date, Watkins has failed to file any objections.

“[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins,

, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report to the extent it is consistent with this Order, and incorporates those portions herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this case is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As a result of this ruling, Watkins’s motions are

necessarily DEEMED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 17th day of December 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Watkins is hereby notified of his right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.