Jedidiah Worrick v. Alan Wilson, City of Walterboro, Sandra Polk, William T....

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Jedidiah Worrick, Case No. 2:25-0572-RMG Plaintiff, v. ORDER Alan Wilson, City of Walterboro, Sandra Polk, William T. Young, Jr., James Broderick, Judy Bridge, Ladson Fishburne, Guerry Buddy Hill, Wanda Taylor, Charles Turkal, Paul Siegel, Carl Brown, Greg Pryor, Mary Rebecca Hill, Colleton County Sheriff Dept., South Carolina Department of Social Services, Walterboro City Council, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate Judge, recommending this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. (Dkt. No. 12). Plaintiff was advised that he had 14 days to file written objections to the R & R and a failure to do so would result in limited clear error district court review and a waiver of the right to file an appeal of the district court's decision. (Id. at 18). No written objections have been timely filed.

I. Background Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other federal statutes alleging that Defendants were involved in the illegal removal of his children without cause. The Magistrate Judge issued a Proper Form Order on April 23, 2025, identifying material deficiencies in the Complaint and directing Plaintiff to provide necessary service documents. (Dkt. No. 6). On June 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed some, but not all, of the required documents to bring his case into proper form. (Dkt. No. 10).

II. Legal Standard A. Report & Recommendation The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. Where the plaintiff fails to file any specific objections, “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.” See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citation and punctuation omitted).

B. Pro Se Pleadings This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. for City of Balt., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).

III. Discussion The Court finds that the R & R provides an accurate summary of the facts and law. Plaintiff was advised of his right to file specific written objections to the R & R within fourteen days of service. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the R & R, and the Court reviews the record for clear error. Finding none, the Court adopts the R & R in full.

The Magistrate Judge ably summarized Plaintiff's Complaint and concluded that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff (1) fails to assert a basis for jurisdiction; (2) fails to state a cognizable claim under the statutes he cites; and (3) fails to provide the necessary documents to bring his case into proper form.

The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues involved in the R & R and correctly concluded that Plaintiff's suit should be dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the R & R (Dkt. No. 12) as the Order of the Court. It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED without prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge January 29, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina