Veronica Ivonne Sausedo Flores v. Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Veronica Ivonne Sausedo Flores, C/A No.: 3:25-cv-6462-SAL Plaintiff, v. ORDER Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendant.

Plaintiff Veronica Ivonne Sausedo Flores, proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking review of pending immigration matters. Defendant has filed two motions to dismiss—first arguing for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and now arguing Plaintiff has received the relief she sought, so this case is moot. This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), recommending the case be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 26.] The Report included a notice advising Plaintiff of her right to file objections, the deadline for doing so, and the consequences of inaction. Id. at 3.

Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, indicating a desire to proceed with this action. See ECF Nos. 29, 33. But despite being directed to file substantive responses to the Defendant’s motions to dismiss and further being advised that her case could be dismissed if she did not do so, she has not responded to Defendant’s arguments that this case should be dismissed and that it is now moot. See ECF Nos. 35, 36.

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. 26, it is adopted and incorporated.

Additionally, based on the Defendant’s submissions, which Plaintiff has not opposed, this case appears to be moot. Accordingly, this action is SUMMARILY DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All pending motions (ECF Nos. 12, 18, 24) are TERMINATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sherr tk.

February 27, 2026 Sherr A. te □□□ Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge