Calloway v. Abston et al
Filing
114
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, accepting 105 Report and Recommendation, denying 82 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Rhonda Abston, Ofc Jeffrey, Wade Byrd. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 2/8/2012. (abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Johnny Calloway, #272829,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-versus)
)
Wade Byrd and Officer Jeffrey,
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)
C.A. No. 1:09-1925-TLW-SVH
ORDER
The Plaintiff has brought this action against the Defendants under Title 42, United States
Code, Section 1983. This matter is now before the undersigned for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges, to whom
this case had previously been assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)
(D.S.C.). In her Report, Magistrate Judge Hodges recommends that Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. # 82) be denied. (Doc. # 105) Defendants have filed objections to the
Report. (Doc. # 107).
In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections. . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the
magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The
Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
1
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F.Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
omitted).
In light of this standard, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections
thereto. The Court accepts the Report.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report is
ACCEPTED (Doc. # 105), Defendants’ objections are overruled (Doc. # 107) and Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 82) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
TERRY L. WOOTEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 8, 2012
Florence, South Carolina
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?