Larry H. Jenkins v. City of Chesnee Police Department, Officer Arturo Beltran...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION Larry H. Jenkins, ) Case No. 7:25-cv-03892-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) City of Chesnee Police Department, ) Officer Arturo Beltran Morales, ) ) Defendants. ) This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss by Defendant City of Chesnee Police Department (“CCPD”). [Doc. 10.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(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.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 8, 2025. [Doc. 1.] On August 26, 2025, CCPD filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. [Doc. 10.] On September 29 and October 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a response opposing the motion and CCPD filed a reply. [Docs. 17; 18.] On December 19, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that CCPD’s motion to dismiss be granted and that the claims against CCPD be dismissed without prejudice. [Doc. 24.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 7.]

Neither party has filed 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, 423 U.S. 261, 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 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” (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, CCPD’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 10] is GRANTED and the claims against CCPD are DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge January 12, 2026 Greenville, South Carolina