Alton Adams v. Michael Raffield, Saluda County Sheriff's Department; Saluda...

ipaes Disp, ey & SO, ny Cori” IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION ALTON ADAMS, § § Plaintiff, § § vs. § Civil Action No. 6:25-13357-MGL § MICHAEL RAFFIELD, Saluda County § Sheriff's Department; SALUDA COUNTY § JAIL AND ASSOCIATED STAFF; § LEXINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC § DEFENDERS (BENNETT CASTRO, DAVID § MAULDIN); SALUDA COUNTY PUBLIC § DEFENDERS; AIKIN COUNTY § PROBATION AND PAROLE; AIKEN § COUNTY SHERIFF; MONICA [LAST § NAME], Supervisor, Saluda County Probation § Office; CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT § DIVISION/DSS; SALUDA AND § LEXINGTON COUNTY CLERK OF § COURTS; and JOHN DOE(S), Unidentified § Agents Responsible, § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, SUMMARILY DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT, DENYING HIS MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, DENYING HIS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW, DENYING HIS MOTION TO COMPEL, AND DENYING HIS MOTION TO AMEND Plaintiff Alton Adams filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional and statutory violations against numerous state defendants.

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (the Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court Adams’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. The Magistrate Judge also recommends the Court deny all of Adams’s motions in light of its recommendation to dismiss the claims. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on March 12, 2026. To date, Adams has failed to file any objections.

“[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is the judgment of the Court Adams’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance of process.

His remaining motions are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 23rd day of April 2026, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Adams is hereby notified of his right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.