Teresa Hill v. Charleston County, South Carolina; Town of Hollywood, South Carolina; and South Carolina Department of Transportation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Teresa Hill, Case No. 2:25-13339-RMG Plaintiff, v. ORDER Charleston County, South Carolina; Town of Hollywood, South Carolina; and South Carolina Department of Transportation, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 12) recommending that the Court dismiss the Town of Hollywood and the South Carolina Department of Transportation because of the failure of Plaintiff to serve these Defendants within 90 days of filing the complaint, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (Dkt. No. 12). Plaintiff was advised that she 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 3). Plaintiff filed no timely objections to the R & R. I. Background Plaintiff, a licensed attorney acting pro se, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging inverse condemnation by Defendants. Defendant Charleston County filed its answer on January 6, 2026. Plaintiff failed to file documents showing that the other named Defendants had been served. After more than 90 days had passed from the filing of the complaint without evidence of service on Defendants Town of Hollywood and the South Carolina Department of Transportation, the Magistrate Judge issued the R & R recommending dismissal of the Town of Hollywood and the South Carolina Department of Transportation. Plaintiff has filed no 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 the Town of Hollywood and the South Carolina Department of Transportation should be dismissed as party defendants under Rule 4(m). As previously indicated, Plaintiff has filed no objections to the R & R. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 12) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES this the Town of Hollywood and the South Carolina Department of Transportation as party defendants in this action.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge June 2, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina