Ndunda v. Pfeil

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Joel Ndunda, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-13185-BHH v. ) ) Brandi Pfeil; Caitlin McGarty; Cecile ) ORDER Guerriero; Dennis Pueblas; Charleston ) Dorchester Mental Health Center; ) South Carolina Department of ) Behavioral and Developmental ) Disabilities; John Doe Probate Judge; ) Charleston County, South Carolina; ) John Doe MUSC Evaluator #1; ) John Doe MUSC Evaluator #2; ) John Doe MUSC Charge Nurse; ) Medical University of South Carolina; ) Tia Lewis; John Doe Defendants 1-5, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Joel Ndunda’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se complaint against the above-captioned Defendants. (ECF No. 1.) On November 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency order directing Costco Wholesale Corporation to preserve evidence, and on December 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for additional emergency relief. (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) Plaintiff also filed a motion for protective order and to expedite discovery on April 24, 2026. (ECF No. 13.) 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. On May 12, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motions. (ECF No. 19.) Specifically, as to Plaintiff’s motion for an emergency order directing Costco to preserve evidence (ECF No. 6), the Magistrate Judge noted that Costco is not a party to this action and that the duty to preserve generally does not apply to non-parties. (ECF No. 19 at 10.) The Magistrate Judge also noted that Plaintiff does not have standing to raise the issue. (Id.) As to Plaintiff’s motion for additional emergency relief (ECF No. 6), the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s request was premature at this time and subject to denial. (ECF No. 19 at 9.) Lastly, as to Plaintiff’s motion for protective order and expedited discovery (ECF No. 13), the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff was not entitled to a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, a protective order under Rule 26(c), or mandamus relief under the All Writs Act at this time. (ECF No. 19 at 3-8.) 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 2 ‘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, after review, the Court finds no clear error and fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and specifically incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 19), and the Court denies Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 6, 7, and 13) for the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge June 1, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina 3