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
Read next
September 4, 2026 · DispatchNancy Mace loses in federal court: Bryant's suit accusing her of defamation and a blackmail conspiracy moves forward
Nancy Mace has lost in federal court. On September 4, 2026, U.S. District Judge Bruce H. Hendricks rejected her pro se bid to move the case out of state court, ruling her removal untimely 'by several measures,' and remanded Berg v. Bryant to the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas. That sends Patrick Bryant's third-party case against Mace forward in state court, a case that accuses her of defamation and of a civil conspiracy to hack his phone and blackmail him into signing over property. The Court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation with modifications, overruled Mace's objections, denied her motion for oral argument, and terminated her duplicate federal case as moot. The ruling is procedural: it does not reach the merits, and Mace's immunity defenses travel with the case. The order (ECF No. 36) is reproduced below. The allegations are disputed and unproven; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
June 16, 2026 · DispatchCourt appoints former Judge Kristi Harrington as third-party neutral to sort the 11,000+ disputed files in Mace's Google Drive
On June 16, 2026, Judge Donald B. Hocker appointed Kristi Harrington, a Charleston attorney and former South Carolina Circuit Court judge, to serve as a 'third-party neutral' in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, No. 2025-CP-10-2671), one of the cluster of cases tied to Rep. Nancy Mace and her former fiance, Patrick Bryant. Harrington's task is to review the more than 11,000 electronic files in what the court calls 'Mace's Google Drive,' files that both Mace and Bryant claim to own, and decide which, if any, must be turned over in discovery. The court split her fees between the two camps, warned the volume could make the process 'very cost-prohibitive,' and entered the order over Mace's objection. The order makes no finding on privilege, admissibility, ownership, or wrongdoing; the underlying allegations remain contested and unproven.
January 21, 2026 · DispatchIn a letter to the judge overseeing her gag order, Mace calls the court a 'Kangaroo Court' and moves the contempt matter to federal court: 'I will not be SILENCED.'
On January 21, 2026, Rep. Nancy Mace wrote directly to Judge Donald B. Hocker, the Charleston County circuit judge presiding over Berg v. Bryant, the case in which she is a third-party defendant under a gag order, calling the court a 'Kangaroo Court,' declaring the gag order unconstitutional, and announcing she was removing the contempt proceeding against her to federal court. Mace wrote the letter pro se, after she says she had discharged her counsel; it was stamped FILED on the state docket January 22, 2026. The full five-page filing is reproduced below. The allegations underlying the litigation are disputed and contested; Mace denies Bryant's claims, and Bryant denies Mace's.
June 8, 2026 · DispatchGretchen Carlson, who helped write the Speak Out Act, files a sworn declaration backing Alexis Berg
On June 8, 2026, Alexis Berg's counsel filed a reply brief in Assignment Desk Works, LLC v. Alexis Berg (No. 2025-CP-10-2671) arguing that the federal Speak Out Act makes the non-disparagement clause ADW is suing on judicially unenforceable, because the dispute before the court involves sexual-assault allegations. Attached was a sworn declaration from Gretchen Carlson, the former Fox News anchor whose 2016 case helped inspire the Act, who states she has met with Berg and that 'this is exactly the situation we fought to address,' and offers to testify. ADW argues the Act does not apply. The motion is undecided; the underlying allegations are contested and denied.
January 15, 2026 · DispatchBryant moves for sanctions over 'fake, AI generated citations' in Mace legal brief, and a cover-up that compounded them
Patrick Bryant filed a Rule 11 sanctions motion in the Berg v. Bryant litigation alleging that Rep. Nancy Mace's attorney submitted AI-fabricated case citations in a court brief, then, the motion alleges, attempted to conceal the error by filing an amended brief that itself allegedly continued to use fabricated citations. Bryant's motion documents the alleged cover-up paragraph by paragraph. Mace and her attorney D. Craig Brown dispute the allegations; no court has ruled on the motion.
July 20, 2026 · Dispatch"The one I'm already in": Mace's Senate withdrawal was a statement about the case, made under a gag order that has never been lifted
Rep. Nancy Mace's July 20, 2026 announcement that she will not run for the Senate was, in both the video and the written statement, an announcement about litigation. She said she was leaving the race 'not because I'm backing down from a fight, but because the one I'm already in matters right now,' told supporters she has 'unfinished business,' and dated that business to the day she 'stood on that House floor.' That was February 10, 2025, when she named four men and told them they had 'bought yourself a one-way ticket to hell.' Three of those men are parties to Berg v. Bryant, where a gag order barring comment on the case was extended indefinitely in December 2025 and, on the documentary record, has never been vacated, dissolved, or found expired. It has also never been enforced. Mace contends it is unconstitutional.