Allysia Love v. Hometown Finance, LLC, Andrew Asbury, and Rhonda Grimes

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Allysia Love, C/A No. 4:25-cv-11328-SAL Plaintiff, v. ORDER Hometown Finance, LLC, Andrew Asbury, and Rhonda Grimes,

Defendants.

Allysia Love (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint asserting claims of race discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e et seq.

See ECF No. 1. Pending before this court is a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) by Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, recommending the complaint be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 25.] The Report alternatively recommends that Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss be granted. Id. at 4–5. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file objections to the Report. [ECF No. 25-1.]

Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, and the time for doing 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. 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).

CONCLUSION After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Given this dismissal, the pending motion to dismiss, ECF No. 22, is TERMINATED AS MOOT, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Shere tk. □□ May 11, 2026 Sherri A. Lydon Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge