Brewington v. Daniel

Brewington · United States District Court for the District of South Carolina · July 8, 2025 · No. 8:25-1968-MGL

Summary

This United States District Court order adopts a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the plaintiff's pro se civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without prejudice. The court found that the plaintiff failed to file timely objections to the magistrate's report, thereby waiving appellate review. Consequently, the case is dismissed without further leave to amend or issuance of process, and the plaintiff is notified of his right to appeal within thirty days.

Court
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
Writing for the Court
Mary Geiger Lewis
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
Decision date
July 8, 2025
Docket number
8:25-1968-MGL
Procedural posture
The district court reviewed a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of a pro se civil-rights action without prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process. The plaintiff filed no objections.
Standard of review
When no timely objection is filed to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court need not conduct de novo review and instead must satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.
Precedential value
Unpublished district-court order; precedential status is unknown and no reporter citation appears.
Parties
Talik Dominique Brewington v. Erik Daniel, Maj. Michael Brown, Lt. Matusiewicz, Lt. Flemmings, Megan Carson, Shada Eaddy, V. Williams, Jones, Jeffery Palmer, Hennigen Wyndam, Kelsie McEleveen, Hassdna Shaw, Ceaser, Sgt. Cara Brown, Sgt. Lamont Hicks, Sgt. Hubert Moses, Sgt. Kiona Quick, Cpl. Javonle Gee, Lt. Matthew Matuseiwiaz Patton, Lt. Victoria Capers
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

section 1983appellate procedurecivil procedureservice of process

Practice areas

civil rightsconstitutional lawcivil procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. What standard of review applies when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation?
  2. Whether the court should adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismiss the § 1983 action without prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

Holdings

  1. When no timely objection is filed, the district court need not conduct de novo review and may accept the magistrate judge's recommendation after determining that no clear error appears on the face of the record.
  2. A party's failure to timely object to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation waives appellate review.
  3. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

Key quotations

Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

Factual background

Talik Dominique Brewington, proceeding pro se, filed a civil-rights action against numerous defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process; Brewington did not file objections.

Procedural history

Brewington filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional-rights violations. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on June 10, 2025. Because Brewington did not object, the district court reviewed the record for clear error, adopted the Report, and dismissed the action without prejudice, without further leave to amend, and without issuance and service of process.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…