Henry Kevin Grant v. William R. Holloway, Capt. D. Hardy, Cpl. Teage

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Henry Kevin Grant, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 8:26-42-BHH v. ) ) ORDER William R. Holloway, Capt. D. Hardy, ) Cpl. Teage, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Henry Kevin Grant’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se second amended complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 16.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary review. On May 13, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court dismiss Defendant William R. Holloway from this action and dismiss Plaintiff’s conditions-of-confinement claim, leaving the action pending against Defendants Capt. D. Hardy and Cpl. Teage as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim regarding his mail. (ECF No. 27.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, 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 to the Report have been filed, the Court has reviewed the record and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 27), and the Court dismisses Defendant Holloway from this action and dismisses Plaintiff’s

conditions-of-confinement claim. The action remains pending against Defendants Hardy and Teage as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim regarding his mail. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge June 3, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina