IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

Karen Ekwue, ) Case No.: 4:25-cv-00808-JD-TER ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER AND OPINION The Town of Pageland, The Pageland ) Police Department, Chief Dean Short, ) in both his individual and professional ) capacity, Lacory McIlwain, in both his ) individual and professional capacity, ) and Larry Neely, in both his ) individual and professional capacity, ) and James Clifford Caldwell, ) ) Defendants. ) )

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III (DE 28), issued pursuant to

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina. The Report addresses Defendant James Clifford Caldwell’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 16). A. Background The Report sets forth the relevant facts and legal standards, which the Court incorporates herein. A brief summary is provided for context. Plaintiff originally filed this action in the Chesterfield County Court of Common Pleas on January 2, 2025, asserting claims under

, the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, and related state law theories. (DE 1-3.) Defendants removed the action to this Court on February 12, 2025, pursuant to

and 1446. (DE 1.) Defendant Caldwell subsequently moved to dismiss the claims against him

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (4), (5), and (6), contending that he was not properly served and that the Complaint fails to state a claim against him. (DE 16.) Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition (DE 19). B. Report and Recommendation On August 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report recommending that Caldwell’s Motion to Dismiss be denied. (DE 28.) The Report found that while Plaintiff had not filed an affidavit of service, Caldwell’s filing of a motion addressing

both jurisdiction and the merits constituted a voluntary appearance equivalent to service under South Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). The Magistrate further concluded that Plaintiff’s factual allegations against Caldwell, accepted as true, state plausible claims for relief under the applicable pleading standards. The Report recommends denying Caldwell’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 16) and allowing him fifteen (15) days from the date of this Court’s order to file an Answer.

(DE 28.) No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. C. Legal Standard In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). The Court 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.,

(4th Cir. 2005). D. Conclusion The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (DE 28) in full. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant James Clifford Caldwell’s Motion to Dismiss (DE 16) is DENIED. Defendant Caldwell shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order to file an Answer. IT ISSO ORDERED.

seca en C pp ducnorc Josaph Dawson, II United States District Judge

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order within thirty (30) days from this date under Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.