Keith Anthony Jones v. RN S. Pealer Medical Staff, Deputy C. Jackson, Deputy D....

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION Keith Anthony Jones, ) Case No. 7:24-cv-06063-JDA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) OPINION AND ORDER v. ) ) RN S. Pealer Medical Staff, Deputy ) C. Jackson, Deputy D. Littleton, ) Deputy S. Escobar, Deputy A. Hardy, ) J. Neeley Medical Staff RN, Deputy ) C. Evangelista, Medical Director K. ) White, Spartanburg County Deputies, ) Spartanburg County Medical Staff ) Personnel, Deputy M. Nix, Deputy J. ) Dial, Deputy/Sargent Jon M. Guest, ) Medical Staff RN Roach, Medical ) Staff RN C. Fernandez, Deputy B. ) Letterman, Medical Staff RN Luz ) Sparveri, and Medical Staff RN ) Jereme Randall. ) ) Defendants. ) ) This matter is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff [Doc. 94] and by Defendants Jeffrey Dail, S. Escobar, C. Evangelista, C.

Fernandez, Jon M. Guest, A. Hardy, C. Jackson, Jereme Randall, Brandon Letterman, D. Littleton, Jennifer Neely, M. Nix, Shana Peeler, Roach, L. Sparveri, and K. White [Doc.

102].1 In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., Dail, Letterman, Neely, and Peeler are misidentified in the caption as J. Dial, B.

Litterman, J. Neeley, and S. Pealar. this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings.

On November 20, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 94] be denied; that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. 102] be granted; that the case be dismissed with prejudice; and that Spartanburg County Deputies and Spartanburg County Medical Personnel be dismissed as defendants because they do not qualify as “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and were never served. [Doc. 115.]

The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 36.]

No party has filed objections and the time to do so has lapsed.

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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 94] is DENIED and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. 102] is GRANTED. Further, Spartanburg County Deputies and Spartanburg County Medical Staff Personnel are dismissed with prejudice as they do not qualify as “persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge December 19, 2025 Spartanburg, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.