Michael Thomas v. M. Cox, Cpt. Blakely

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Michael Thomas, Case No. 6:25-13866-RMG Plaintiff, v. ORDER M. Cox, Cpt. Blakely, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 16) recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the R&R as the order of the court and dismisses this action without prejudice and without leave to amend.

I. Background Plaintiff proceeds in forma paupers and pro se. Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges Defendant Ofc. Cox slammed a tray flap on his hand and injured him. (Dkt. No. 16 at 2).

The Magistrate Judge issued an R&R (Dkt. No. 16) recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

The R&R observed that this action is duplicative of a separate pending action Plaintiff is actively prosecuting for the same alleged injury, Thomas v. Cox, et al., Case No. 6:25-cv-12065-RMG. (Id. at 16).

Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 21). Therein, Plaintiff admits this action is duplicative. (Id. at 1) (admitting he filed “the first complaint” in Case No. 6:25-cv-12065).

Nevertheless, Plaintiff asks “the Courts now to throw away the first complaint” in Plaintiff’s other pending case and “keep the amended complaint” in this action if “the court would allow.” (Id.).

II. Legal Standards A. Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making 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 only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

B. Pro Se Pleadings This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep't of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).

III. Discussion After a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the R&R as the order of the court and dismisses this action without prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiff admits this action is duplicative of another pending action. Further, Plaintiff’s objection contains no specific argument regarding the R&R. See generally (Dkt. No. 21). As the R&R notes, Plaintiff’s “claims regarding the food flap incident . . . continue in Thomas 1.” (Dkt. No. 16 at 4 n.1). Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection and dismisses this action because it is duplicative of Plaintiff’s other pending action. See Nexsen Pruet, LLC v. Westport Ins. Corp., No. CIV.A. 3:10- 895-JFA, 2010 WL 3169378, at *2 (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 2010) (“Generally, a case pending in federal court may be dismissed for reasons of wise judicial administration whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal court.”) (internal citation omitted).

Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 16) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES this action without prejudice and without leave to amend.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge April 20, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina