Patrice Elizabeth v. Carvana LLC, Bridgecrest Credit Company, LLC, and Drivetime Automotive Group, Inc.

Opinion

EE oR a) 6, A HS Rorsp IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION PATRICE ELIZABETH, § Plaintiff, § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-11244-MGL § § CARVANA LLC, BRIDGECREST CREDIT § COMPANY, LLC, and DRIVETIME § AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., § Defendants. § AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

PlaintiffPatrice Elizabeth (Elizabeth) filed this lawsuit against the above-named Defendants. Elizabeth is self represented. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting to the Court Elizabeth’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) be denied. 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 arecommendation 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 August 22, 2025, and Elizabeth’s objections to the Report were due on September 5, 2025. Elizabeth waited until October 8, 2025, to file a motion for

judicial correction and reconsideration of the Report, which the Court will liberally construe as her objections to the Report. Elizabeth’s objections, being over a month late, are untimely. They are also wholly without merit, such that a discussion of them is unnecessary. Therefore, the Court will overrule Elizabeth’s objections. Therefore, after a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules Elizabeth’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein. It is therefore the judgment of the Court Elizabeth’s motion for a TRO is

DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 12th day of November, 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. /s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Elizabeth is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.