Adams v. Jimenez - Pro Se Civil Action Dismissed Without Prejudice
Summary
The US District Court for the District of South Carolina dismissed Jessie Adams' pro se civil complaint against Sergio Jimenez without prejudice, adopting Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett's Report and Recommendation. The dismissal was ordered due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction and because the plaintiff's address was insufficient, preventing delivery of the Report and any opportunity to file objections. The court found no clear error in the Magistrate's analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
“Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.”
About this source
GovPing monitors US District Court DSC Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.
What changed
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in full, dismissing the complaint without prejudice due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Report was returned undeliverable because the plaintiff failed to provide a sufficient mailing address, depriving the court of the ability to contact the plaintiff or receive objections. The dismissal is without issuance and service of process. For compliance and legal purposes, this represents a procedural dismissal that does not constitute a ruling on the merits, leaving the plaintiff free to refile if able to cure the jurisdictional and address deficiencies.
Pro se litigants and parties filing federal civil actions should ensure their address of record is current and adequate, as insufficient addresses prevent receipt of court documents and can result in dismissal without substantive review.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Jessie Adams v. Sergio Jimenez
District Court, D. South Carolina
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 3:26-cv-00266
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jessie Adams, C/A No. 3:26-cv-266-SAL
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Sergio Jimenez,
Defendant.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. This matter is before the court for
review of a Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett (the
“Report”), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B) (D.S.C.).
[ECF No. 6.] The Report recommends the court dismissal of this action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and that the dismissal be without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process. Id. at 3–4. Attached to the Report was the Notice of Right to File Objections. Id. at 5.
Although the Report was mailed to Plaintiff at the address of record, it was returned as
undeliverable, noting “insufficient address unable to forward.” See ECF No. 10-1 at 1. Because
Plaintiff did not provide a sufficient address, he has not received the Report, nor has he filed
objections.
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. See 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).
In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in
accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 6,
and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Additionally, because the court has no adequate
address to contact Plaintiff, his case must be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sherr x.
April 9, 2026 Sherri A. Lydon
Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge
Named provisions
Citations
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for US District Court DSC Docket Feed
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from D.S.C..
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when US District Court DSC Docket Feed publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.