# Brown v. Wagner

> District Court, D. South Carolina · January 9, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10778073

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. South Carolina
- **Decided:** January 9, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10778073

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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.’”

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tommy Dwayne Brown, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 8:24-cv-4076-BHH
v. )
) ORDER
P. Wagner, Anderson County, State )
of South Carolina, )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Tommy Dwayne Brown’s (“Plaintiff”)
pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C.,
the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review.
On November 14, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued an order informing Plaintiff that
his complaint (other than his excessive force and unlawful search and seizure claims
against Deputy Wagner) was subject to dismissal as drafted and providing him time to
attempt to cure the defects by filing an amended complaint. (ECF No. 22.) When Plaintiff
failed to file an amended complaint as directed, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation (“Report”) on December 13, 2024, outlining the issues and recommending
that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims (other than his excessive force and unlawful search
and seizure claims against Deputy Wagner). (ECF No. 26.) Attached to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff 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, because no objections to the Report have been filed, 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 hereby adopts and incorporates
the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 24), and the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s
claims (other than his excessive force and unlawful search and seizure claims
against Deputy Wagner) pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court
order.

2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
January 9, 2024
Charleston, South Carolina

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10778073. Public record. Not legal advice.