James R. Watson v. Deputy Dawn M. Hutchinson, Sheriff James Hudson

25-13099IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA James R. Watson, C/A No.: 4:25-cv-13099-SAL-TER Plaintiff, v. ORDER Deputy Dawn M. Hutchinson, Sheriff James Hudson, Defendants.

This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 35.] The Report recommends dismissing Defendant Sheriff James Hudson from this case with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Id. Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report and the consequences if he did not. Id. at 4. No objections have been filed. For the reasons below, the court adopts the Report and dismisses Defendant Hudson.

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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). In response to a recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections. See Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 459 (4th Cir. 2023). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Plaintiff filed this civil action against Deputy Dawn M. Hutchinson and Sheriff James Hudson. The magistrate judge authorized service against Defendant Hutchinson but recommended Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Hudson be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [ECF No. 35 at 2—3.] Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to object, but he has not done so. He has continued to litigate this case as to Defendant Hutchinson. The court finds no clear error in the Report and adopts the recommendation.

CONCLUSION Finding no clear error in the Report, ECF No. 35, it is adopted and incorporated. For the reasons discussed above and in the Report, this action is SUMMARILY DISMISSED as to Defendant Hudson with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. This case remains referred to the magistrate judge as to Defendant Hutchinson.

IT ISSO ORDERED.

February 5, 2026 Sherri A. ee Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge