Correll Pickett v. Cox, Janerfer, Maco the Company

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Correll Pickett, C/A No.: 4:25-cv-12983-SAL-TER Plaintiff, v. ORDER Cox, Janerfer, Maco the Company,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Correll Pickett, a former pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this civil action. This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 31.] The Report recommends the court dismiss Defendant Maco the Company without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because Plaintiff makes no allegations against Defendant Maco the Company. Id. at 2–4. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report. Id. at 5. Plaintiff has not objected to the Report, and the time to do so has expired.1 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, Defendant Cox has filed a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 38, which remains pending and referred to the magistrate judge at this time. 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. 31, it is adopted and incorporated. For the reasons discussed in the Report, Defendant Maco the Company is SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sherr tk.

April 9, 2026 Sherri A. ee Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge