Part of: Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant → D.S.C.) · House Ethics Committee Investigation of Rep. Nancy Mace (OCC Review 25-5681) · Berg v. Bryant (and Bryant's Third-Party Complaint against Mace) · Mace v. Bowman · Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg · Musgrave v. Mace (2:25-cv-01823-RMG) · Mace v. Bryant · Litigation Overview & Court-Filing Index
A federal magistrate recommends sending the case Mace removed to federal court back to state court, finding her pro se removal 'untimely': 'it is RECOMMENDED that Bryant's Motion to Remand be GRANTED and that the case be REMANDED to state court.'
On June 17, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a Report and Recommendation in the case Rep. Nancy Mace removed to federal court (Berg v. Bryant, docketed federally as No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC), recommending that the case be remanded to state court. The recommendation is procedural, not a ruling on the truth of anyone's allegations: the magistrate found that Mace, who removed the case and briefed the remand motion pro se, was on notice the case was removable by December 12, 2025, so her January 29, 2026 removal of the entire case was untimely. A Report and Recommendation is not a final order; the parties have 14 days to object, and U.S. District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks will make the final decision. The underlying allegations are disputed and contested; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
On June 17, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry issued a Report and Recommendation in the case Rep. Nancy Mace removed to federal court last winter, recommending that the case be remanded to state court. The recommendation does not decide the truth of anyone's allegations. It is procedural: the magistrate found that Mace's removal of the case to federal court was untimely.
The case began as Berg v. Bryant, No. 2025-CP-10-03124, filed in the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, in which Patrick Bryant filed a third-party complaint naming Mace, along with Melissa Britton, as a third-party defendant. On January 29, 2026, Mace, proceeding pro se (representing herself), removed the matter to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, where it was docketed as Mace v. Bryant, No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC. Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Patrick Bryant moved to remand the case back to state court, and Mace briefed her opposition pro se. The Report and Recommendation now goes to the District Judge for review.
The complete thirteen-page Report and Recommendation is reproduced below, and the original PDF is available here.
The recommendation, as filed
Page 1, the caption and opening. "This action was removed to this Court from state court by Third-Party Defendant Nancy Ruth Mace ('Mace'), proceeding pro se, on January 29, 2026." Before the court is Bryant's Motion to Remand; "This Report and Recommendation is entered for review by the District Judge."
Page 10, the finding: "the undersigned finds that Mace had notice of the removability of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442 by December 12, 2025, the date that she asserted federal defenses in her Answer to the Third-Party Complaint."
Page 11, the holding: because Mace did not file her removal until January 29, 2026, "the removal of the entire state court case was untimely," and the magistrate recommends "that Bryant's Motion to Remand be granted and that this action be remanded to state court."
Page 12, the conclusion, signed Molly H. Cherry, United States Magistrate Judge, Charleston, South Carolina, June 17, 2026: "it is RECOMMENDED that Bryant's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED and that the case be REMANDED to state court."
What the magistrate found
The recommendation turns on a deadline. Under the federal removal statute, a defendant generally has 30 days after service of the initial pleading to remove a case to federal court. The magistrate judge found that Mace was on notice the case could be removed well before she actually removed it:
"Upon review, the undersigned finds that Mace had notice of the removability of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442 by December 12, 2025, the date that she asserted federal defenses in her Answer to the Third-Party Complaint."
Those defenses, the magistrate noted, were the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Westfall Act, and the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
"In her December 12 Answer, Mace clearly raised federal defenses arising out of her official duties, including protection under the FTCA, the Westfall Act, and the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution."
Because that 30-day clock began running on December 12, 2025, the magistrate found it had run out before Mace filed her removal:
"by December 12, 2025, Mace was on notice that the case was subject to removal pursuant to § 1442(a), such that the 30-day removal clock began to run at that time and expired, at the latest, on January 11, 2026."
The magistrate added that even if the clock had not started until Mace's December 29, 2025 motion to vacate the state court's gag order, it still would have expired "on January 28, 2026, the day before she filed her Notice of Removal." That led to the holding:
"Because Mace did not file her Supplemental Notice of Removal removing the entire case until January 29, 2026, the removal of the entire state court case was untimely. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Bryant's Motion to Remand be granted and that this action be remanded to state court."
And the formal conclusion:
"For the reasons set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that Bryant's Motion to Remand (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED and that the case be REMANDED to state court."
What it is, and what it is not
A Report and Recommendation is not a final order. It is a magistrate judge's recommendation to the District Judge, here U.S. District Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks, who makes the final decision. The document advises that the parties may file specific written objections within fourteen days, after which the District Judge rules. The recommendation also does not reach the merits of the underlying allegations; it decides only that, as a procedural matter, the removal of the entire case was untimely under the federal removal statute.
One related point appears in the magistrate's footnotes. On the same day Mace removed this case, she filed a separate removal, docketed as No. 2:26-cv-00306-BHH-MHC, that removed only Bryant's motion for civil contempt. No party has moved to remand that case, and the June 17 Report and Recommendation expressly does not address it.
The underlying dispute is the subject of ongoing civil litigation in Berg v. Bryant (Charleston County No. 2025-CP-10-03124) and the related federal removal proceedings (D.S.C. Nos. 2:26-cv-00305 and 2:26-cv-00306), as well as a separate South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigation. All allegations remain unproven and contested. Mace denies Bryant's claims; Bryant and the other named parties deny Mace's allegations; no underlying matter has been adjudicated. Nothing here is a finding of fact. For case background see Mace Federal Removal and The Litigation.
Sources & related coverage:
- The filing itself: Report and Recommendation (PDF, 13 pages), entered June 17, 2026 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry, recommending that Bryant's Motion to Remand be granted, Berg v. Bryant, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC (ECF No. 22).
- The federal docket is public on CourtListener (Mace v. Bryant, No. 2:26-cv-00305) and on PACER (pacer.uscourts.gov). The underlying state action, No. 2025-CP-10-03124, is searchable on the SC Judicial Branch Public Index (Charleston County).
- Case hub: Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant to D.S.C.)
- Related: Mace's "Kangaroo Court" letter and removal to federal court
