Bryson v. Hice

Opinion

psEs DISTR ey. ey 9 S a ‘a alee bk g ep Be ye < Osu” IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION JESSICA BRYSON, § Plaintiff, § § VS. § Civil Action No. 3:24-860-MGL-SVH § CURTIS HICE, Individually and in Their § Official Capacity as a Sumter County Deputy § Sheriff, SAMUEL DALTON, Individually § and in Their Official Capacity as a Sumter § County Deputy Sheriff, STEVEN § WEATHERSBEE, Individually Their & Official Capacity as a Sumter County Deputy § Sheriff, BRANDON OSBORNE, Individually § and in Their Official Capacity as a Sumter § County Deputy Sheriff, CITY OF SUMTER § POLICE DEPARTMENT, KENDRA DOW- § KING, Jndividually and in Their § Official Capacity as City of Sumter Police § Officers, DEVANTE PAYNE, Individually § and in Their Official Capacity as City of § Sumter Police Officers, BRIANNA DARGON, § Individually and in Their Official Capacity as § City of Sumter Police Officers, and SUMTER § COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY THIS CASE Plaintiff Jessica Bryson (Bryson) filed this civil rights action the above-named defendants (collectively, Defendants). She alleges violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court grant Defendants’ unopposed motion to stay this case pending resolution of Bryson’s criminal charges. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation

has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on April 30, 2025. To date, the parties have failed to file any objections. “[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985). After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standards set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Defendants’ motion to stay is GRANTED. This case is hereby STAYED in its entirety pending resolution of Bryson’s criminal charges. The parties shall file a joint status report no later than September 15, 2025, a subsequent report every 120 days thereafter during the pendency of the stay, and within 10 days after the resolution of Bryson’s criminal charges. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 15th day of May 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE