District Court, D. South Carolina, 2026

Loura Gonzalez, as next friend of Ruben Gonzalez v. Director of the Spartanburg...

Loura Gonzalez, as next friend of Ruben Gonzalez v. Director of the Spartanburg...
District Court, D. South Carolina · Decided February 17, 2026
Loura Gonzalez, as next friend of Ruben Gonzalez v. Director of the Spartanburg...

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Loura Gonzalez, as next friend of Ruben C/A No.: 9:25-cv-12796-SAL Gonzalez, Petitioner, v. ORDER Director of the Spartanburg County Detention Center, Respondent.

Petitioner Loura Gonzalez filed this action pro se and purportedly on behalf of her brother Ruben Gonzalez, a pretrial detainee being held at the Spartanburg County Detention Center. See ECF No. 1. 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.). [ECF No. 4.] The Report recommends this court dismiss without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return because Petitioner lacks standing and because the court should abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Id. 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).

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. 4, it is adopted and incorporated. For the reasons discussed in the Report, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and WITHOUT REQUIRING RESPONDENT TO FILE A RETURN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sherr tk.

February 17, 2026 Sherr A. te □□□ Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.