Dizzley v. Pate

D. South Carolina

Dizzley v. Pate

DecidedMay 14, 2020

Docket8:19-cv-02665

StatusUnknown

This text of Dizzley v. Pate (Dizzley v. Pate) 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

Dizzley v. Pate, (D.S.C. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Terron Gerhard Dizzley, ) C/A No. 8:19-cv-02665-SAL-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION & ORDER ) Sgt. Pate, Ms. Green, Officer Brown, ) Off. Thorn, Ms. Brown, Off. Cleveland, ) Off. Martin, Ms. Jackson, Officer ) Nethertan, Officer Parish, Officer Smith, ) Warden Anabinet, Regional Director Davis, ) Reginald L. Weston, Miracle D. Davenport, ) Brittany M. Livingston, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )

This matter is before the court for review of the April 21, 2020 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin (the “Report”), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion or renewal of TRO and preliminary injunction. [ECF No. 69.] Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. Id. No party filed objections to the Report, however, and the time for response has lapsed. 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for renewal of TRO

and preliminary injunction, ECF No. 41, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sherri A. Lydon United States District Judge May 14, 2020 Florence, South Carolina

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 ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

Terron Gerhard Dizzley, ) C/A No. 8:19-cv-02665-SAL-JDA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION & ORDER ) Sgt. Pate, Ms. Green, Officer Brown, ) Off. Thorn, Ms. Brown, Off. Cleveland, ) Off. Martin, Ms. Jackson, Officer ) Nethertan, Officer Parish, Officer Smith, ) Warden Anabinet, Regional Director Davis, ) Reginald L. Weston, Miracle D. Davenport, ) Brittany M. Livingston, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )

This matter is before the court for review of the April 21, 2020 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin (the “Report”), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion or renewal of TRO and preliminary injunction. [ECF No. 69.] Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. Id. No party filed objections to the Report, however, and the time for response has lapsed. 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for renewal of TRO

and preliminary injunction, ECF No. 41, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sherri A. Lydon United States District Judge May 14, 2020 Florence, South Carolina

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dizzley v. Pate, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dizzley-v-pate-scd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack