Fredrick v. Director Rhodes et al

Filing 16

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF # 10 ) and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Jacquelyn D Austin on 03/12/2025. (dsto, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Jonathan Fredrick,
Plaintiff,
v.
Director Rhodes, Lt. Curcio, Major
Stafford, C.O. McElveen,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:25-cv-00551-JDA

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the
Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 10.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas
E. Rogers, III for pre-trial proceedings.
Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint was docketed on January 29, 2025. [Doc. 1.] On
February 12, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the matter
be dismissed with prejudice and without issuance and service of process. [Doc. 10.] The
Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections
to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 5.] Plaintiff has
filed no objections and the time to do so has lapsed.*
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
*

The Report was mailed to Plaintiff on February 12, 2025, to the address Plaintiff had
provided, but it was subsequently returned marked “RETURN TO SENDER NOT
DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD,” with “Released” written on
the envelope. [Docs. 11; 14.]

determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71
(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the
Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate
Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an
objection. 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” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report
of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States District Judge
March 12, 2025
Columbia, South Carolina

2