Lamont Quadre Dewberry v. Jennifer Neely, Deputy J. Powell, Deputy O. Machado,...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Lamont Quadre Dewberry, C/A No. 1:24-cv-4889-JFA-SVH Plaintiff, v. ORDER Jennifer Neely, Deputy J. Powell, Deputy O.

Machado, and Deputy A. McFalls, Defendants.

Lamont Quadre Dewberry (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his constitutional rights. 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.

Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 47). This Motion for Summary Judgment was fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 47, 61 & 62).

Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge conducted a review of the record and prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”).1 (ECF No. 63). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, or in the alternative should be independently dismissed on the merits. Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards 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). of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

Plaintiff was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on October 16, 2025. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by October 30, 2025. Id. Thereafter, Plaintiff requested and this Court granted two separate Motions for Extension of Time to File Objections. (ECF Nos. 71 & 75). Thus, by this Court’s most recent order, Plaintiff was required to file his objections by January 8, 2026. (ECF No. 75). Plaintiff has 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 indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted.

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 incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 63).

Consequently, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 47) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dpeoge d Cader tons January 23, 2026 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge