David Perez Delagarza v. Brice Garrett, former Clerk of Court

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA David Perez Delagarza, C/A No. 1:26-cv-57-JFA-SVH Plaintiff, v. ORDER Brice Garrett, former Clerk of Court, Defendant.

David Perez Delagarza (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review.

After performing an initial review of the Complaint, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action issued orders notifying Plaintiff his claims were subject to summary dismissal and gave him the opportunity to amend his Complaint or otherwise respond. (ECF Nos. 7 & 8). Further, the Magistrate Judge issued an order informing Plaintiff that he is required to notify the Clerk of Court in writing of any address changes. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge conducted a review of the Complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), including 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 11). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to summary dismissal because Plaintiff’s allegations concern actions taken in Defendant’s capacity as Clerk of Court and she is protected by quasi-judicial immunity. Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

The Report advised Plaintiff of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on March 2, 2026. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by March 16, 2026. Id. Plaintiff failed to file any objections and the time for doing so has elapsed. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. The orders sent by the Magistrate Judge, (ECF Nos. 7 & 8), as well as the Report, (ECF No. 11), have been returned to sender as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 13 & 16). As Plaintiff in this action, David Perez Delagarza was required to keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing of any address change.

A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).

Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report indicates the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to summary dismissal. Accordingly, because Plaintiff failed to amend his Complaint or otherwise respond to the Court, the Report correctly concludes these claims should be dismissed.

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 11). Consequently, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without further leave for amendment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cader tons April 6, 2026 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge