Isaiah Jacob Holmes v. Quandara Grant, Dana Aiken, Sergeant Black, Officer...

EE oR ‘A nS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION ISAIAH JACOB HOLMES, § Plaintiff, § § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-3255-MGL § QUANDARA GRANT, DANA AIKEN, § SERGEANT BLACK, OFFICER JOSEPH, § SERGEANT BUSH, and DR. GARMEN, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING A DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND DISMISSING THIS CASE WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff Isaiah Jacob Holmes, who ts self-represented, brings this action against Defendants Quandara Grant, Dana Aiken, Sergeant Black, Officer Joseph, Sergeant Bush, and Dr. Garmen.

The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court Garmen’s motion for summary judgment be granted and, because Garmen is the only remaining Defendant, this case be dismissed in its entirety.

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report 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 April 28, 2026, but Adams failed to file any objections to the Report. “[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 . . . there is no clear error on the face of the record . . . 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 Garmen’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and, because Garmen is the only remaining Defendant, this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 28th day of May, 2026, in Columbia, South Carolina. /s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are 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.