Deja Bowman v. Staffmark Group, LLC a/k/a Staffmark Investment, LLC; Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc.; Darrin Hall; and Ayanna Cave, in their official capacities; and Conspiracy as to Darrin Hall and Ayanna Cave, in their individual capacities

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

Deja Bowman, Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-1536-CMC-KDW

Plaintiff, vs. ORDER

Staffmark Group, LLC a/k/a Staffmark Investment, LLC; Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc.; Darrin Hall; and Ayanna Cave, in their official capacities; and Conspiracy as to Darrin Hall and Ayanna Cave, in their individual capacities,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Deja Bowman’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint alleging employment discrimination and retaliation, as well as state law violations, by Defendants. Dkt. No. 7 (Amended Compl.). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(e), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). Summons were issued as to Defendants Ayanna Cave, Darrin Hall, Husqvarna Professional Products, and Staffmark Group, LLC on June 4, 2025. Dkt. No. 8. Staffmark filed an Answer on July 2, 2025, and Darrin Hall and Husqvarna filed an Answer on July 18, 2025. Dkt. Nos. 11, 17. No proof of service was returned for Defendant Cave. On October 20, 2025, Staffmark filed a motion to dismiss Defendant Cave for lack of service. Dkt. No. 34. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition. Dkt. No. 36. Staffmark replied. Dkt. No. 38. On March 18, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending Staffmark’s motion to dismiss Defendant Cave for lack of service be granted, and Defendant Cave be dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. No. 43. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. Plaintiff filed a response in support of the Report, consenting to the recommendation Defendant Cave be dismissed without prejudice for lack of service under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), and consenting to dismissal of the civil conspiracy cause of action against Cave and Hall, without prejudice. Dkt. No. 46 at 1-2. Plaintiff requests to preserve her rights to notice and take the deposition of Cave as a non-party witness and to call her as a witness at trial. Id. at 2. She notes the parties have agreed to submit a proposed amended scheduling order to allow for the deposition of Cave and to make any corresponding adjustments to related deadlines. Id. 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. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which

a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. 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.”) (citation omitted). 2 After a review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, to which no objections have been lodged, the court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. Defendant Ayanna Cave is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(m). In addition, pursuant to Plaintiff’s response, the court dismisses the civil conspiracy cause of action without prejudice. For the reasons above, Defendant Staffmark’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant Cave (Dkt. No. 34) is granted, and Defendant Cave is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Plaintiff’s claim for civil conspiracy is also dismissed without prejudice. This matter is re-referred to the Magistrate Judge for pre-trial proceedings. The parties may move to amend the currently operative Consent Amended Scheduling Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina April 7, 2026