Glass v. Hill et al

Filing 102

ORDER adopting the 98 Report and Recommendation, granting Defendants' 84 motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff's 75 , 88 motions for summary judgment. Signed by Honorable Sherri A. Lydon on 12/16/2021. (lbak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Walter Glass,

Case No.: 1:20-01972-SAL
Plaintiff,

v.
ORDER
Jasmine Hill, Tyatta Davis, and
Wali Khan,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court for review of the November 10, 2021 Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”) of United States Magistrate 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. 98.] In
the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the district court grant Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, ECF No. 84, and deny Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos.
75, 88. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do 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).
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).

1

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. 98,
and incorporates the Report by reference herein. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, ECF No. 84, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos.
75, 88, are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Sherri A. Lydon
Sherri A. Lydon
United States District Judge

December 16, 2021
Florence, South Carolina

2