Fred Freeman v. State of South Carolina, Honorable Diana Goodstein

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Fred Freeman, C/A No.: 2:25-cv-6965-SAL Plaintiff, v. ORDER State of South Carolina, Honorable Diana Goodstein, Defendants.

Plaintiff Fred Freeman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action. This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), recommending the court dismiss this action without prejudice and without leave for further amendment. [ECF No. 12.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report. Id. at 8.

Plaintiff has not objected to the Report, and the time to do so has expired.1 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). 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).

1 The only document the court has received since the Report issued is a financial affidavit. See ECF No. 14. While this addresses Plaintiff’s prior failure to bring his case into proper form, this action should still be summarily dismissed because Defendant Goodstein is entitled to immunity, as is the State of South Carolina. [ECF No. 12 at 4–5.] The South Carolina Department of Corrections is not a proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 5.

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).

Finding no clear error in the Report, ECF No. 12, it is adopted and incorporated. For the reasons discussed in the Report, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND, AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is TERMINATED AS MOOT.

IT ISSO ORDERED.

Sherr tk.

February 17, 2026 Sherri A. ee □□□ Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge