Derek Mario Williams v. Brayden Leopold, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, Harry McConnell, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, and Jacob Youngblood, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity

D. South Carolina

Derek Mario Williams v. Brayden Leopold, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, Harry McConnell, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, and Jacob Youngblood, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity

DecidedDecember 29, 2025

Docket6:24-cv-01772

StatusUnknown

This text of Derek Mario Williams v. Brayden Leopold, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, Harry McConnell, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, and Jacob Youngblood, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity (Derek Mario Williams v. Brayden Leopold, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, Harry McConnell, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, and Jacob Youngblood, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Derek Mario Williams v. Brayden Leopold, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, Harry McConnell, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, and Jacob Youngblood, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, (D.S.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

Derek Mario Williams, ) Case No. 6:24-cv-01772-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Brayden Leopold,Greenville County ) Sheriff's Department, in his individual ) capacity, Harry McConnell, Greenville ) County Sheriff's Department, in his ) individual capacity, and Jacob ) Youngblood, Greenville County ) Sheriff's Department, in his individual ) capacity, ) ) Defendants. )

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 43.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings. Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint was entered on the docket on April 10, 2024. [Doc. 1.] On October 7, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 35.] On April 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. [Doc. 43.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 12.] Instead of filing objections, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal which was dismissed on November 24, 2025. [Docs. 47, 55.] The Court directed Plaintiff to file any objections to the Report by December 11, 2025. [Doc. 56.] Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time to do so has lapsed. 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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976).

The Court will review 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. 35] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge December 29, 2025 Greenville, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Derek Mario Williams, ) Case No. 6:24-cv-01772-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Brayden Leopold,Greenville County ) Sheriff's Department, in his individual ) capacity, Harry McConnell, Greenville ) County Sheriff's Department, in his ) individual capacity, and Jacob ) Youngblood, Greenville County ) Sheriff's Department, in his individual ) capacity, ) ) Defendants. )

This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Doc. 43.] In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings. Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint was entered on the docket on April 10, 2024. [Doc. 1.] On October 7, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [Doc. 35.] On April 18, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. [Doc. 43.] The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. [Id. at 12.] Instead of filing objections, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal which was dismissed on November 24, 2025. [Docs. 47, 55.] The Court directed Plaintiff to file any objections to the Report by December 11, 2025. [Doc. 56.] Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time to do so has lapsed. 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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976).

The Court will review 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. 35] is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge December 29, 2025 Greenville, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Derek Mario Williams v. Brayden Leopold, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, Harry McConnell, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, and Jacob Youngblood, Greenville County Sheriff's Department, in his individual capacity, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derek-mario-williams-v-brayden-leopold-greenville-county-sheriffs-scd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack