Bernard Charles Foster v. Veronica Thacker

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Bernard Charles Foster, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-13923-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Veronica Thacker, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Bernard Charles Foster’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint. 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 23, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 8.) In the Report, the Magistrate Judge explained that, even liberally construing the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support a cognizable § 1983 claim to support the Court’s exercise of federal question jurisdiction, and diversity jurisdiction does not exist for the Court to consider any state law claims. 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, no objections to the Report have been filed. After review, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and finds no clear errror. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 8), and the Court dismisses this action for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge January 21, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina