Charakus Williams v. John Doe 1, Jane Doe 1, John Doe 2, and Jane Doe 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Charakus Williams, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 6:26-cv-1367-BHH v. ) ) ORDER John Doe 1, Jane Doe 1, John Doe ) 2, and Jane Doe 2, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Charakus Williams’ (“Plaintiff”) pro se amended complaint against John and Jane Doe Defendants (“Defendants”). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.

On May 5, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 32.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended that even if Plaintiff pays the filing fee, the Court should summarily dismiss the matter on the merits without further leave for amendment, thereby mooting Plaintiff’s motions filed at ECF Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 29. (Id.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report in full (ECF No. 32); the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3); and the Court summarily dismisses this action on the merits without further leave to amend, thereby mooting Plaintiff’s other pending motions (ECF Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 29).

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge May 29, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina