Solomon Jackson v. Camden Police Department; Det. C.J. Olson; Roderick Todd;...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Solomon Jackson, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-13415-CMC Plaintiff, vs. ORDER Camden Police Department; Det. C.J. Olson; Roderick Todd; Belinda Davis; Byron Gipson; Janet C. Hasty; Ginger M. Farmer; Judge Heath Taylor, Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Complaint filed November 17, 2025. Dkt. No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings.

On February 26, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending this matter be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Dkt. No. 17. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.

The copy of the Report mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not provided an alternative address despite being warned to notify the court of any address change.

See Dkt. No. 7 at 2.

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 the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court is required to review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”) (citation omitted).

After a review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error, and agrees this matter should be dismissed.

Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. This matter is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina March 25, 2026