Hezekiah Nelson-Williams v. Sheriff Leroy Ravenell, State of South Carolina,...

EE oR a) 6, A LS Rorsp IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION HEZEKIAH NELSON-WILLIAMS, § Petitioner, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-126-MGL § § SHERIFF LEROY RAVENELL, STATE OF § SOUTH CAROLINA, MELISSA SUE § FORTIER, PHILLIP WARREN GEESE, § OFFICER MARTY CARRIGG, JUDGE § STEPHANIE MCKUNE-GRANT, TAYLOR § HEATH, CHARLES MCCUTCHEON, MAITE § MURPHY, VALERIE LAWRENCE, and ALL § SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING THIS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND WITHOUT LEAVE FOR FURTHER AMENDMENT Petitioner Hezekiah Nelson-Williams (Williams), who is a pretrial detainee, filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition (the petition) against the above-named Respondents.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the petition be dismissed without prejudice, and without leave for further amendment. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.§ 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only arecommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on January 29, 2026, but Williams failed to file any objections. “[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of the Court this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and without leave for further amendment. Consequently, Williams’s motions are all necessarily RENDERED AS MOOT.

After the Magistrate Judge filed the Report, recommending Williams’s petition be dismissed without prejudice, three of the eleven Respondents filed an unnecessary amended motion to dismiss in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

The Magistrate Judge had already suggested to the Court it dismiss the case. As such, these three Respondents’ motion to dismiss was needless. Consequently, the motion is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

To the extent Williams moves for a certificate of appealability, such request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 19th day of February, 2026, in Columbia, South Carolina.

/s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Williams is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.