John Shapiro v. Joy Campanelli

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA John Shapiro, Case No. 2:25-13861-RMG Plaintiff, v. ORDER Joy Campanelli, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 9) recommending that this action be summarily dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. Plaintiff was advised that he had 14 days to file written objections to the R & R and a failure to file objections would result in clear error review and waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. (Id. at 7). Plaintiff filed no objections to the R & R. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the R&R as the order of the Court.

I. Background Plaintiff brought this action with the single allegation that “[u]pon information and belief, Defendant conspired with others, which violated Fourteenth Amendment Rights.” (Dkt. No. 1).

There was no statement of the residences of Plaintiff1 or Defendant or any factual allegations to support Plaintiff’s allegation of conspiracy against Defendant. The matter was referred to the

1 Plaintiff provided no allegation regarding his own state of residence. The Clerk noted that Plaintiff submitted the complaint in an envelope that had an Alaska return address. (Dkt. No. 1- 1).

Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge directed the Plaintiff to bring the case into proper form and warned him that a failure to comply with the Court’s order could lead to dismissal of the action. (Dkt. No. 4). Plaintiff did not file anything in response to the Magistrate Judge’s Proper Form Order.

The Magistrate Judge issued a R & R recommending that this action be summarily dismissed for lack of venue, failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and failure to bring the case into proper form. As previously stated, Plaintiff filed no objections to the R & R. II. Legal Standards A. Magistrate’s Report and 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (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 Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).

III. Discussion The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably addressed the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that this action should be summarily dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance or service of process.

Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 9) as the order of the Court and DISMISSES this action without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance or service of process.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge March 17, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina