Marques Heath v. South Carolina Department of Corrections; Warden Nelson; Warden Canning, individually and in their official capacities as Wardens of Broad River Correctional Institution

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Marques Heath, C/A No. 5:25-cv-4200-JFA-KDW

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER South Carolina Department of Corrections; Warden Nelson; Warden Canning, individually and in their official capacities as Wardens of Broad River Correctional Institution,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Marques Heath, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action against the defendants, raising claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. Thereafter, Defendants Warden Canning and South Carolina Department of Corrections filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 40). After receiving full briefing on the motion, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 69). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that the motion should be granted. Id. The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). 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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation.

All parties were advised of their right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on June 24, 2026. Id. The Magistrate Judge required any objection to be filed by July 8, 2026. Id. No party filed objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th

Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Here, all parties failed to raise any objection and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior

filings indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Defendants’ motion should be granted. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 69). Therefore, the court grants the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40) as to all claims against Defendants Warden Canning and SCDC. Accordingly, this matter 1s recommitted back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dptoge 5 Comabsem gp July 23, 2026 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge