Case Information
*1 3:24-cv-03311-JDA Date Filed 06/10/25 Entry Number 42 Page 1 of 2 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Nigel Thomas Colon, ) Case No. 3:24-cv-03311-JDA
)
Plaintiff, )
) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Walmart, )
)
Defendant. )
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s action with prejudice for Plaintiff’s noncompliance with the discovery process and failure to comply with an order of the Court. [Doc. 34.] Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant in May 2024 [Doc. 1-1], and Defendant removed it from the Richland County Magistrate Court [Doc. 1]. 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 Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings.
On May 13, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that Defendant’s motion be granted. [Doc. 39.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. [ Id. at 5.] Neither party has filed objections to the Report, 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 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the
3:24-cv-03311-JDA Date Filed 06/10/25 Entry Number 42 Page 2 of 2 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. , 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, Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 34] is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge June 10, 2025
Columbia, South Carolina
2