Glass v. Hill

D. South Carolina

Glass v. Hill

DecidedJanuary 29, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-01972

StatusUnknown

This text of Glass v. Hill (Glass v. Hill) 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

Glass v. Hill, (D.S.C. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Walter Glass, Case No. 1:20-cv-1972-SAL-SVH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Jasmine Hill; Cunningham; Tyatta Davis; and Wali Khan,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court for review of the October 9, 2020 Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 30]. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends Defendant Cunningham be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 30 p.2]. No party filed objections to this Report, and the time to do so has passed. See [ECF No. 30]. 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, Defendant Cunningham is DISMISSED with prejudice. Motions are referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Sherri A. Lydon January 29, 2021 Sherri A. Lydon Florence, South Carolina United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Walter Glass, Case No. 1:20-cv-1972-SAL-SVH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Jasmine Hill; Cunningham; Tyatta Davis; and Wali Khan,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court for review of the October 9, 2020 Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 30]. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends Defendant Cunningham be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 30 p.2]. No party filed objections to this Report, and the time to do so has passed. See [ECF No. 30]. 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, Defendant Cunningham is DISMISSED with prejudice. Motions are referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Sherri A. Lydon January 29, 2021 Sherri A. Lydon Florence, South Carolina United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Glass v. Hill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-hill-scd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack