A prisoner's lawsuit was thrown out after he stopped communicating with the court.

Record source: CourtListener

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Cecil E. Fox, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 0:26-cv-1122-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Lexington County Detention Center; ) Lexington County Sheriff’s Department, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Cecil E. Fox’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se amended complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 7.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the Magistrate Judge issued an order notifying Plaintiff of pleading deficiencies in his amended complaint and instructing him to file a second amended complaint correcting the deficiencies. (ECF No. 15.) The Magistrate Judge’s order, however, was returned to the Court as undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a new address despite being instructed to do so. (See ECF No. 5 at 2.) Accordingly, on July 29, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss this matter based on Petitioner’s failure to comply with a Court order and failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 22 at 2-4.) 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 and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 22), and the Court dismisses this matter without prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order and failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge August 28, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina 2

Official opinion source