Jones v. Walmart - Dismissal Without Prejudice, Failure to Serve

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.

Join Free.law Now

April 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Jayrosky O. Jones v. Walmart

District Court, D. South Carolina

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 3:24-cv-06991

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jayrosky O. Jones, C/A No. 3:24-cv-6991-JFA-PJG

Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER
Walmart,

Defendant.

Jayrosky O. Jones (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case
was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review.
After performing an initial review and authorizing service of process, the Magistrate
Judge assigned to this action prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1
(“Report”). (ECF No. 25). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this action
is subject to dismissal for failure to serve pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the
docket on March 6, 2026. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by

March 20, 2026. Id. Plaintiff failed to file any objections and the time for doing so has
elapsed. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions
of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th
Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this

Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby
v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not
required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report
and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s

Complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to failure to serve pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m).
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report,
this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.
(ECF No. 25). Consequently, this action is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 10, 2026 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge