Cosby v. South Carolina Probation Parole and Pardon Services

D. South Carolina

Cosby v. South Carolina Probation Parole and Pardon Services

DecidedApril 26, 2021

Docket6:20-cv-00655

StatusUnknown

This text of Cosby v. South Carolina Probation Parole and Pardon Services (Cosby v. South Carolina Probation Parole and Pardon Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cosby v. South Carolina Probation Parole and Pardon Services, (D.S.C. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Kristin Cosby, ) ) C.A. No. 6:20-655-HMH-JDA Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) OPINION & ORDER ) South Carolina Probation, Parole and ) Pardon Services, ) ) Defendant. ) This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommenda- tion has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006). The parties filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face 1 of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Austin’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it

herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice and with leave to refile. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina April 26, 2021

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Kristin Cosby, ) ) C.A. No. 6:20-655-HMH-JDA Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) OPINION & ORDER ) South Carolina Probation, Parole and ) Pardon Services, ) ) Defendant. ) This matter is before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommenda- tion has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006). The parties filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face 1 of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Austin’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it

herein. It is therefore ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice and with leave to refile. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina April 26, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cosby v. South Carolina Probation Parole and Pardon Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cosby-v-south-carolina-probation-parole-and-pardon-services-scd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack