Dallan Timothy Thorstenson v. Travis Doolittle; Jason Fox; Chris Lind; Cpl....

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Dallan Timothy Thorstenson, C/A No. 1:25-cv-13314-JFA-SVH Plaintiff, v. ORDER Travis Doolittle; Jason Fox; Chris Lind; Cpl. Howard; Cpt. Luckey; Lt. Adams; M.

Murdock; C. Johnson; Major Nick Gallam; Robert Bowman; Eric Abdullah; Beth Ann Young; Norwood Brodie; Jacqueline Charbeau; Cassie Hall; Bill Weeks; Honorable Michael G. Nettles; Courtney Clyburn Pope; Honorable R. Scott Sprouse; Honorable Patricia Yvonne Arthur Rushton; Travis Smith; Mitch McBride; Luke Sherman; Kelly Rose; Alton Smith; Robert Burgess; Tim Thornton; Joanna Delany; Nick McCarly; John Doe; FNU Vancala; Robert J. Harte; Tammie Holmes; North Augusta Department of Public Safety; Aiken County Sheriff’s office; Aiken County Detention Center; Aiken County; Aiken County Solicitor’s office; Aiken County Public Defenders Office; South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense; Aiken County Clerk of Court; South Carolina Supreme Court; South Carolina Court Administration; Office of Disciplinary Counsel | Commission on Lawyer Conduct, Aiken County Government; City of North Augusta; South Carolina Attorney General’s Office; and Medgar Patten Defendants.

Plaintiff Dallan Timothy Thorstenson, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review.

After performing an initial review of the complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Plaintiff to file the documents necessary to bring this case into proper form for the issuance and service of process and advising Plaintiff of the deficiencies of his complaint and permitting him an opportunity to file an amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 16 & 17). The order warned Plaintiff that his failure to comply within the time permitted would subject his 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. Plaintiff did not respond to the court’s order and the deadline to do so has passed.

Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 25). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this matter should be summarily dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).

Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on December 3, 2025. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by December 17, 2025. Id. Plaintiff failed to file objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.

A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 41.

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 25). Consequently, this action is dismissed for failure to comply with court order without prejudice and without leave to further amend. All other pending motions (ECF Nos. 3 & 12) are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 13, 2026 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge