Darryl Keith Louis, Jr., also known as Sadiq v. Tonya James

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Darryl Keith Louis, Jr., also known ) as Sadiq, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-4309-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Tonya James, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Darryl Sadiq Louis, Jr., also known as Sadiq’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint filed against Defendant Tonya James (“Defendant”), the Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 115) and a motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 116), and on July 23, 2025, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 118). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C. On January 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motions and grant Defendant’s motion. (ECF No. 167.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. On January 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections, which the Court granted, giving Plaintiff until the end of February to file his objections. (ECF Nos. 169, 170.) On March 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a second motion for an extension of time to file objections, which the Court granted in part, instructing Plaintiff that he shall file his objections on or before March 17, 2026, plus an additional three days if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Rule 6. (ECF Nos. 172, 173.) The Court specifically noted that no further extensions would be granted. (ECF No. 173.) To date, however, no objections have been filed.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Here, because no objections have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

Accordingly, the Court adopts and specifically incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 167). Therefore, for the specific reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 115); the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 116); and the Court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 118).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge March 23, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina