Damon Athony Paul, a/k/a Paul Wall a/k/a Tony Paul v. South Carolina Department...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Damon Athony Paul, a/k/a Paul Wall a/k/a Case No. 1:26-1076-RMG Tony Paul, Plaintiff, v. ORDER South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. (16) recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this action without leave to amend. Plaintiff was advised that he had fourteen days to file written objections to the R & R and the failure to file timely objections would result in limited, clear error review and waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order to the court of appeals. (Id. at 16). Plaintiff filed no timely objections to the R & R. I. Background Plaintiff, acting pro se, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the South Carolina Department of Corrections for alleged indifference to a serious medical condition. The Magistrate Judge issued a Proper Form Order directing Plaintiff to address deficiencies in the complaint presented. Plaintiff failed to respond to the original Proper Form Order and an extension of time to comply with the Proper Form Order. The Magistrate Judge then issued the R & R setting for the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Proper Form Order and further finding that the named Defendant is not a proper party in a § 1983 action. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the action be dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff thereafter failed to timely file objections to the R & R. 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).

III. Discussion The Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues in this action and correctly concluded that this action should be dismissed for failure to respond to the Proper Form Order and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

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 leave to amend. All claims are dismissed are without prejudice.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge June 1, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina