Fletcher v. Facebook, Inc. et al

Filing 40

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and specifically incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 38), and the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to transfer (ECF No. 33) and transfers this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/5/2025. (agaz, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Timothy Randolph Fletcher,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Facebook, Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc.,
)
Numerous Unknown Facebook
)
Employees, Numerous Unknown Meta )
Platform Employees, Numerous
)
Unknown US Government Employees, )
Numerous Unknown Non-Governmental )
Organizations, and Numerous Unknown )
Co-Conspirators,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-1384-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Timothy Randolph Fletcher’s pro se
(“Plaintiff”) amended complaint alleging various civil rights violations. (ECF No. 17.) In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.
On February 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation
(“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion to
transfer and transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California for further proceedings. (ECF No. 38.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report was a notice advising the parties 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, no objections to the Report have been filed, and the Court has reviewed the
record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge
for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and specifically incorporates the
Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 38), and the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to
transfer (ECF No. 33) and transfers this action to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
March 5, 2025
Charleston, South Carolina

2