Larry James Tyler v. South Carolina, Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson Sr.,...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION LARRY JAMES TYLER, § Plaintiff, § § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-6114-MGL § SOUTH CAROLINA, ATTORNEY GENERALS ALAN MCCRORY WILSON SR., § APPELLATE ATTORNEY VICTOR R. § SEEGER, POLICE OFFICER ERIC HODGES, § ATTORNEY RICHARD JONES, ATTORNEY § MEGAN HARRIGAN JAMESON, and § ATTORNEY JOHNNY ELLIS JAMES JR., § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BE MOVED TO A FEDERAL PRISON, DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND, AND WITHOUT ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF PROCESS Plaintiff Larry James Tyler, who is self-represented, brings this action against Defendants South Carolina, Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Sr., Appellate Attorney Victor R. Seeger, Police Officer Eric Hodges, Attorney Richard Jones, Attorney Megan Harrigan Jameson, and Attorney Johnny Ellis James Jr. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court Tyler’s motion to be moved to a federal prison be denied, and the Court dismiss this action without prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. The Magistrate Judge filed the Report 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 January 28, 2026, but Tyler failed to file any objections to the Report. “[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 . . . there is no clear error on the face of the record . . . 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 pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of the Court Tyler’s motion to be moved to a federal prison is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 28th day of May, 2026, in Columbia, South Carolina. /s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the 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.