Green v. Sterling

D. South Carolina

Green v. Sterling

DecidedJanuary 10, 2023

Docket0:22-cv-01634

StatusUnknown

This text of Green v. Sterling (Green v. Sterling) 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

Green v. Sterling, (D.S.C. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION

Stephen J. Green, C/A No.: 0:22-cv-1634-SAL-PJG

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Director Brian Sterling, Warden Charles Williams, and Deputy Warden John Palmer,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court for review of the December 9, 2022 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 87.] In the Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge recommends denying Green’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 5. Id. at 4. Included in the Report was a notice advising the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report. Id. at 5. Neither party filed objections, and the time for doing so has expired. 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). Without 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, ECF No. 87, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Green’s Motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order, ECF No. 5, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Sherri A. Lydon January 10, 2023 Sherri A. Lydon Columbia, 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 ROCK HILL DIVISION

Stephen J. Green, C/A No.: 0:22-cv-1634-SAL-PJG

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER Director Brian Sterling, Warden Charles Williams, and Deputy Warden John Palmer,

Defendants.

This matter is before the court for review of the December 9, 2022 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 87.] In the Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge recommends denying Green’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 5. Id. at 4. Included in the Report was a notice advising the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report. Id. at 5. Neither party filed objections, and the time for doing so has expired. 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). Without 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, ECF No. 87, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Green’s Motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order, ECF No. 5, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Sherri A. Lydon January 10, 2023 Sherri A. Lydon Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Green v. Sterling, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-sterling-scd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack