Christopher W. Martin v. Santander Bank; Santander Bank U.S.; Santander Bank,...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Christopher W. Martin, Case No. 2:26-537-RMG Plaintiff, v. ORDER Santander Bank; Santander Bank U.S.; Santander Bank, N.A.

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 18) recommending that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

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 3). Plaintiff filed no timely objections to the R & R. I. Background Plaintiff, acting pro se, brought this action against the above captioned defendants. The Magistrate Judge identified deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint and issued a Proper Form Order addressing these deficiencies and advised Plaintiff of his duty to keep his mailing address current with the Court. The Proper Form Order was returned as undeliverable. The Clerk again mailed the Proper Form Order to the only address Plaintiff had provided. The mailing was again returned undeliverable. The Magistrate Judge then issued the R & R recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff 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 case was subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 18) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES this action without prejudice.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

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