Joseph Cooper Jr. v. Geraldine Keith

GSES DSR Ky 6, ‘A HS Rorsp IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION JOSEPH COOPER JR., § Plaintiff, § § vs. § § CIVIL ACTION 3:25-13936-MGL GERALDINE KEITH, § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING BOTH PLAINTIFF’S CASE AND HIS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff Joseph Cooper Jr. filed this lawsuit against Defendant Geraldine Keith. Cooper is representing himself.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting Cooper’s case and his motion for a preliminary injunction be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She further recommends the dismissal be without prejudice to Cooper’s right to file similar pleadings and motions in state court. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only arecommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 22, 2025, but Cooper failed to file any objections to the Report. “[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of the Court Cooper’s case and his motion for a preliminary injunction are both DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, Cooper’s motion for an extension of time is necessarily RENDERED AS MOOT.

Cooper’s case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Cooper’s right to file similar pleadings and motions in state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 12th day of January, 2026, in Columbia, South Carolina. /s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Cooper is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.