Joshua Alan McBee v. Jennifer Neely, Jeremy Randell, Shanna Peeler, Melina...

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

Joshua Alan McBee, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-06270-JD ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER Jennifer Neely, Jeremy Randell, Shanna ) Peeler, Melina Brackles, Dr. McDonald, Ms. ) Lucy, Ms. Carol, and Olivia Roach, ) ) Defendants. ) ) This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges (DE 52), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina.

The Report is about the Magistrate Judge’s initial review of pro se Plaintiff Joshua Alan McBee’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended Complaint.1 (DE 10, 21.)

A. Background The Report comprehensively sets forth the factual allegations and legal framework, which the Court adopts by reference.

The Magistrate Judge recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). and that Defendant Olivia Roach be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect service. The Report advised Plaintiff of his right to file objections and the consequences of failing to do so. Plaintiff filed no objections, and the time for filing objections has expired.

B. Legal Standard In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

C. Conclusion The Court has reviewed the entire record and finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (DE 52) in its entirety.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders; 2. Defendant Olivia Roach is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to effect service of process; and 3. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (DE 41) and Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings (DE 54) are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joséph Dawson, III United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina January 6, 2026

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from this date under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.