Deondre Montreal Russell v. J. Burnett; Medical Staff; and Warden of FCI...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Deondre Montreal Russell, ) Case No.: 1:25-cv-13465-JD-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER J. Burnett; Medical Staff; and Warden ) of FCI Edgefield, ) ) Defendants. ) ) This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges (DE 13), issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) of the District of South Carolina, concerning the initial review of Plaintiff Deondre Montreal Russell’s (“Plaintiff”), pro se Amended Complaint (DE 9).1 A. Background The Report sets forth the relevant facts and applicable legal standards, which the Court incorporates herein by reference. In brief, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, alleges that Defendant J. Burnett strangled him on December 30, 2024, after which he was placed in the Special Housing Unit without medical The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). treatment. (DE 9 at 5.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Warden of FCI Edgefield (“Warden”) failed to train staff and protect him. (Id.) B. Report and Recommendation The Magistrate Judge issued the Report on December 30, 2025, recommending Defendant Medical Staff and Warden be summarily dismissed. (DE 13.)

The Report concludes that Plaintiff may not bring a claim pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against Medical Staff because it is not an individual defendant. Further, Plaintiff also fails to state a claim against the Warden, as he does not allege the Warden’s personal involvement in the alleged conduct, and allegations of failure to train or protect are insufficient. (Id.) C. Legal Standard To be actionable, objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). “The Supreme Court has expressly upheld the validity of such a waiver rule, explaining that ‘the filing of objections to a magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (2005) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985) (emphasis added)). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

D. Absence of Objections The Report advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within the time provided by law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.

In the absence of objections, the Court is not required to conduct a de novo review and need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.

Upon review, the Court finds none.

EK. Conclusion Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court finds no error. The Court, therefore, adopts the Report (DE 13) and incorporates it herein by reference.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants Medical Staff and Warden of FCI Edgefield are DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joséph Dawson. III United States District Judge Florence, South Carolina February 18, 2026 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.