Jackson v. Wal-Mart Inc ( 2024 )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Eureka M. Jackson, ) Case No. 6:24-cv-01006-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Wal-Mart Inc., Mark Willis, Lisa ) Crumpton, Jerome Mikell, ) ) Defendants. ) This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 19.] 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 Kevin McDonald for pre-trial proceedings. On May 23, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. [Doc. 19.] The Magistrate Judge advised the Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if she failed to do so. [Id. at 12.] Plaintiff has not filed 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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge June 24, 2024 Florence, 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.