Scott Hendricks v. Greenville County; Greenville County Sheriffs Office; Officer Matthew Anderson, in his individual capacity; Officer Tyler Fletcher, in his individual capacity; Officer Michael Downy, in his individual capacity; Officer Bradley Grice, in his individual capacity

Opinion

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

Scott Hendricks, ) Case No. 6:24-cv-03587-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Greenville County; Greenville County ) Sheriffs Office; Officer Matthew ) Anderson, in his individual capacity; ) Officer Tyler Fletcher, in his individual ) capacity; Officer Michael Downy, in ) his individual capacity; Officer ) Bradley Grice, in his individual ) capacity, ) ) Defendants. )

This matter is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants. [Doc. 33.] 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 William S. Brown for pre-trial proceedings. On January 9, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending the following: (1) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be granted in part as to all Defendants on the § 1983 claim asserted in the sixth cause of action, (2) the district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, and (3) the district court should remand the remaining state law claims to the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas. [Doc. 41.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 24.] The parties have not filed 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 the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report 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 will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 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. Regarding the sixth cause of action alleging excessive use of force under the United States Constitution, the South Carolina Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, summary judgment is GRANTED as to the federal claim. Because all remaining claims arise under state law, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and REMANDS all remaining claims to the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge January 28, 2026 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.