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

Leigh Ann Atkinson, Gary Atkinson, ) Case No. 6:25-cv-12975-JDA and Leslie Atkinson, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER v. ) ) City of Easley, John Doe Detectives, ) Pickens County Detention Center, ) South Carolina Department of Social ) Services, Friends of Pickens County ) Guardian ad Litem Program, Jane ) Doe, John and Jane Doe, ) ) Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 3] and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 9]. 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. Plaintiffs filed a pro se document on October 14, 2025, that the Magistrate Judge construed as a Complaint seeking relief under

. [Doc. 1.] The same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. 3.] On October 16, 2025, the Court issued an Order directing Plaintiffs to file a complaint on the standard form, signed by each Plaintiff, that fully presents the claims each Plaintiff asserted against each Defendant with supporting allegations to sufficiently state a claim for relief; submit proposed service documents for the named Defendants to include a summons form and USM-285 forms; and pay the applicable filing fee or submit a Form AO 240. [Doc. 6.] Plaintiffs were informed that their failure to comply with the Order within the time permitted would subject their case to dismissal for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with an order of the court under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Id. at 3.] Plaintiffs did not respond to the Order within the time prescribed, and on November 19,

2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the matter be summarily dismissed without issuance and service of process and without prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the October 14, 2025, Order. [Doc. 9.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiffs of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 9.] Plaintiffs have filed no 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 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)). 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, this action is DISMISSED without issuance and service of process, and

without prejudice. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 3] is FOUND AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge December 19, 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.