Thomas V. Lampley v. James Godfrey

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Thomas V. Lampley, ) Case No. 2:26-cv-00026-JDA-MGB ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) James Godfrey, ) ) Defendant. ) ) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Complaint and the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Docs. 1; 7.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker for pre-trial proceedings.

On January 6, 2026, the Clerk docketed Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Doc. 1.] On February 11, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Court dismiss the case without prejudice and without leave to amend because Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment fabrication-of- evidence claim is conclusory and barred by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). [Id. at 4–7.] 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. [Id. at 9.] Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report, and the time to do so has lapsed.

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. 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). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference to the extent consistent with this Order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] is DISMISSED with prejudice, not on the merits, under Younger, see Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237, 247 (4th Cir. 2006), and for the additional reasons described above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge April 16, 2026 Columbia, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Plaintiff is hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.