Jason Masters v. Major Anderson, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-08139
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Jason Masters, Case No. 1:25-cv-8139-RMG

Plaintiff, v. ORDER Major Anderson, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 35) recommending that all claims against the Defendants, except the Fourteenth Amendment retaliatory claim against Defendant Gray, be dismissed. Plaintiff was advised that a failure to timely file written objections to the R & R would result in limited clear error review and waiver of the right to appeal the District Court’s order. (Id. at 15). Plaintiff filed no objections to the R & R. As set forth below, the Court adopts the R & R as the order of the Court. Legal Standard The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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 Report 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 1 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). This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v. Dep't of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). Discussion Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Cherokee County Detention Center acting pro se, filed suit against various members of the Detention Center staff alleging unlawful handling of his mail and legal documents and retaliatory conduct. Defendant seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims. (Dkt. No. 22). The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of all but the alleged retaliatory claim against Defendant Grey. The Magistrate Judge recommended that (1) all claims against Defendants in their official capacities be dismissed pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment; (2) all

claims alleging interference with legal materials and mishandling mail be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to allege any injury associated with a claim of denial of meaningful access to the courts; (3) all claims for alleged violation of Plaintiff’s free speech rights related to opening his mail outside his presence be dismissed at the request of Plaintiff; and (4) the claim of retaliatory action against Defendant Barry be dismissed because there was only an allegation of verbal harassment but the Fourteenth Amendment claim against Defendant Gray be allowed to go forward

2 because Plaintiff alleged abuse and harassment coupled with a retaliatory lockdown. (Dkt. No. 35 at 5-13). After a review of the record in this matter and the R & R, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues in this matter and correctly

concluded that all claims asserted by Plaintiff, except the retaliatory claim against Defendant Gray, be dismissed. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Court adopts the R & R of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 35) as the order of the Court and dismisses all claims against Defendants except the retaliatory claim against Defendant Gray.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge

December 29, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina