Marquis Grampus v. Donovon Freeze, Francisco Collazo, Dustin Cragg, Christopher...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Marquis Grampus, C/A No. 6:25-cv-11255-JFA-KFM Plaintiff, v. ORDER Donovon Freeze, Francisco Collazo, Dustin Cragg, Christopher Brunson, Robin Miller, Warden Kendall, William Brightharp, Ann Sheppard, Lt. Reed-McGee, NyKeemah Fields, Defendants.

Marquis Grampus, (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 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.

After performing an initial review of the Complaint, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action notified Plaintiff that some of his claims were subject to summary dismissal and gave him multiple opportunities to amend his pleadings. (ECF Nos. 7, 10 & 14).

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge conducted a review of the Complaint pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), including 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 22). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that Plaintiff’s excessive force claims against Lt. Freeze, Lt. Collazo, Lt.

Cragg, and Sgt. Brunson should survive screening. Id. at 3. However, the Report further recommends Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the other Defendants—Lt. Miller, Warden Kendall, William Brightharp, Ann Sheppard, Lt. Reed-McGee, and Ofc. Fields— are subject to summary dismissal. Id. at 3–4. The Report avers Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to make personal allegations of wrongdoing against these Defendants, and it is unclear in what capacity these Defendants were involved in Plaintiff’s alleged constitutional deprivations. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards 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 January 8, 2026. Id. The Magistrate Judge required Plaintiff to file objections by January 22, 2026. Id. Plaintiff 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

1 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).

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 the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Lt. Miller, Warden Kendall, William Brightharp, Ann Sheppard, Lt. Reed-McGee, and Ofc.

Fields are subject to summary dismissal. Accordingly, because Plaintiff failed to amend his pleadings, and his Complaint does not sufficiently allege personal allegations against Lt.

Miller, Warden Kendall, William Brightharp, Ann Sheppard, Lt. Reed-McGee, and Ofc.

Fields, the Report correctly concludes these claims should be dismissed.

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 Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 22). Consequently, Plaintiff’s claims against Lt. Miller, Warden Kendall, William Brightharp, Ann Sheppard, Lt. Reed-McGee, and Ofc. Fields are dismissed with prejudice, without leave for further amendment, and without issuance of service of process. This case shall be referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings as it relates to Plaintiff’s remaining excessive force claim against Lt. Freeze, Lt. Collazo, Lt. Cragg, and Sgt.

Brunson.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 19, 2026 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge