Johnson v. South Carolina Department of Social Services, No. 0:2024cv04731 - Document 17 (D.S.C. 2024)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: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 summarily DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Jacquelyn D. Austin on 10/29/2024. (apsn)

Download PDF
Johnson v. South Carolina Department of Social Services Doc. 17 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Robert W. Johnson, Plaintiff, v. South Carolina Department of Social Services – York County, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 0:24-cv-04731-JDA OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 9.] 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 Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings. Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint was filed on August 29, 2024. [Doc. 1.] On October 1, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the case be summarily dismissed without further leave for amendment on the bases that the Complaint failed to include factual allegations showing that Plaintiff was entitled to relief and that Defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. [Doc. 9.] 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 6.] 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 determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 Dockets.Justia.com (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 summarily DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge October 29, 2024 Columbia, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.