Jaymie Carter v. Greenville County; City of Greenville; Sgt. Nicole Drummond;...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Jaymie Carter, ) Case No. 6:25-cv-00155-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Greenville County; City of Greenville; ) Sgt. Nicole Drummond; Scotty ) Bodiford, ) ) Defendants. ) This matter is before the Court on motions for summary judgment filed by Defendant City of Greenville (the “City”); Defendants Scotty Bodiford, Sgt. Nicole Drummond, and Greenville County (the “County Defendants”); and Plaintiff. [Docs. 17; 18; 19.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre- trial proceedings.

On December 22, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that the City’s motion for summary judgment be granted as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against it and denied as moot as to the state law claims against the City; that the County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted as to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Sgt. Drummond and denied as moot as to the state law claims against the County Defendants; and that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied as to his § 1983 claim and denied as moot as to his state law claims. [Doc. 30.] The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and remand those claims to the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas. [Id.] 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 12.] 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. 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, the City’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 17] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART; the County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. 18] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART; and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 19] is DENIED IN PART and DENIED AS MOOT IN PART.

Summary judgment is granted to the City and Sgt. Drummond on Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, which are remanded to the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge January 13, 2026 Greenville, South Carolina