Derrick Timothy Davis, a/k/a Twin, lil Dee, lil OG v. Ben Alexander Scott,...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION ) Derrick Timothy Davis, a/k/a Twin, lil ) Case No. 4:25-cv-00129-JDA Dee, lil OG, ) Plaintiff, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER v. ) ) Ben Alexander Scott, Latta Police; ) Joshua Holt, Chief; Steven Ray ) Walter, Police; Ethan Graves, Police; ) John Doe, charge nurse; John Doe, ) charge doctor, ) ) Defendants. ) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Docs. 19; 22.] 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 Mary Gordon Baker for pre-trial proceedings.

On August 4, 2025, the Clerk docketed Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 19.] On December 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the action be dismissed without further leave to amend. [Doc. 22.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 11.] Plaintiff filed no 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 of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without issuance and service of process, without further leave to amend, and without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge January 12, 2026 Florence, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.