Jamario Alan Goolsby v. Payton Swancy, Brady Harrison, Jason Owens, Kelly...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Jamario Alan Goolsby, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 6:25-cv-13654-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Payton Swancy, Brady Harrison, ) Jason Owens, Kelly Patrick, Greenville ) County Sheriff’s Office, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Jamario Alan Goolsby’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.

On December 4, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) In the Report, the Magistrate Judge determined that Defendant Swancy is entitled to prosecutorial immunity; Defendants Harrison, Owens, and Patrick are entitled to dismissal because the complaint lacks factual allegations against them; Greenville County Sheriff’s Office is not a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983; and Plaintiff’s claims are not properly before the Court based on the Younger abstention doctrine. (Id.) Additionally, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal because he does not allege sufficient facts to establish a constitutional violation under § 1983. (Id.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s thorough analysis.

Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 9), and the Court dismisses this action without leave to amend and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge January 9, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina