Ubong Christopher Ubokudom; J., a minor v. Dollar General Corporation;...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Ubong Christopher Ubokudom; J., a minor, C/A No.: 3:25-cv-12971-SAL Plaintiffs, v. ORDER Dollar General Corporation; DolgenCorp., Inc., Defendants.

Plaintiff Ubong Christopher Ubokudom, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action. 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 court dismiss this action without prejudice. [ECF No. 23.] As explained in the Report, Plaintiff has failed to bring this case into proper form, and this action is also subject to dismissal because it is duplicative of another action, Ubokudom v. Dolgen Corp., C/A No. 3:25-3120-JFA, which was dismissed in December 2025. Id. 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.

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. 23, it is adopted and incorporated. For the reasons discussed in the Report, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITHOUT LEAVE FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT, AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 4, is TERMINATED in light of the dismissal of this case.

IT ISSO ORDERED.

Sherr tk.

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