Travis Marquis Hunt v. Greenville County Sheriffs Department, Greenville County Detention Center, Bodiford Greenville County Detention Center Admin, Barllet Greenville County Detention Center Admin, Collins Greenville County Detention Center Admin, Salido Greenville County Detention Center Admin, Ethen J. Gray Sheriffs Office Internal Affairs, DSS Family Court, John Greyor Solicitors Office

Opinion

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

) Travis Marquis Hunt, ) Case No. 6:25-cv-12832-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) OPINION AND ORDER ) v. ) ) Greenville County Sheriffs ) Department, Greenville County ) Detention Center, Bodiford Greenville ) County Detention Center Admin, ) Barllet Greenville County Detention ) Center Admin, Collins Greenville ) County Detention Center Admin, ) Salido Greenville County Detention ) Center Admin, Ethen J. Gray Sheriffs ) Office Internal Affairs, DSS Family ) Court, John Greyor Solicitors Office, ) ) Defendants. )

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of the Magistrate Judge. [Docs. 13; 16.] 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 October 6 and 24, 2025, the Clerk docketed Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended Complaint in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Docs. 1; 13.] On December 2, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the action be dismissed without leave to amend and without issuance and service of process. [Doc. 16.] 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 30.] The Clerk docketed objections from Plaintiff on December 16, 2025. [Doc. 18.] 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 Report explains several reasons why Plaintiff fails to adequately plead a claim, including that the Greenville Sherriff’s Office, the Greenville County Detention Center, DSS, and the Family Court, cannot be sued under § 1983 because none of those Defendants is a person and DSS is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; Plaintiff makes no specific allegations against Bodiford, Barllet, Collins, Salido, or Ethen J. Gray and does not adequately plead supervisory liability as to Bodiford, Barllet, Collins, or Salido; and Gregory is entitled to prosecutorial immunity. [Doc. 16 at 9–15 & n.4.] The Report also sets out various other reasons why Plaintiff’s pleadings fail to allege facts to state a claim for relief specific to his particular causes of action. [Id. at 15–29.] In his objections, Plaintiff does not engage the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. [Doc. 18.] Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution for the pro se Plaintiff, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law. Upon

such review, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without leave to amend, without issuance and service of process, and without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge December 17, 2025 Greenville, South Carolina

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