Vanover v. McCray et al, No. 8:2022cv01503 - Document 53 (D.S.C. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER; because no party has filed objections to the Report, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 46 ), and the Court denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22 ) without prejudice and with leave to re-file. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 5/2/23.(rweb, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Vanover v. McCray et al 8:22-cv-01503-BHH-JDA Date Filed 05/02/23 Entry Number 53 Page 1 of 2 Doc. 53 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Sayvion Vanover, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Curtis McCray; Corey Scott; John ) Doe; Jane Doe, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) Civil Action No. 8:22-cv-1503-BHH ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Sayvion Vanover’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 23, 2022, Defendant Corey Scott (“Defendant” or “Scott”) filed a motion for summary judgment, and the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C. On April 6, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin issued a report and recommendation (“Report”), outlining the issues and recommending that the Court deny Defendant’s motion without prejudice and with leave to re-file. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to Dockets.Justia.com 8:22-cv-01503-BHH-JDA Date Filed 05/02/23 Entry Number 53 Page 2 of 2 which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because no party has filed objections to the Report, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 46), and the Court denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) without prejudice and with leave to re-file. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge May 2, 2023 Charleston, South Carolina 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
