Louis v. Stirling

Filing 66

ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 25 ); overruling Plaintiff's objections to the report and recommendation (ECF No. 30 ); and denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20 ) as premature. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 03/11/2025. (cpri)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Darryl Keith Louis, Jr., also known as )
Saddiq,
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Brian P. Stirling, Director,
)
)
Defendant. )
________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-00759-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court for review of United States Magistrate Judge Shiva
V. Hodges’ Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 25.) The Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court deny the motion for summary judgment filed by pro se Plaintiff
Darryl Keith Louis, Jr., also known as Saddiq (“Plaintiff”), filed on April 12, 2024. (See ECF
No. 20.) In her Report, the Magistrate Judge properly relies on Fourth Circuit law and
explains that Plaintiff’s motion is premature because Defendant had not yet had adequate
time for discovery. (ECF No. 25 at 2-3.) The scheduling order in effect at that time was
issued on April 1, 2024, and it provided for a discovery period through May 31, 2024, and
a July 1, 2024, deadline for dispositive motions. (Id. at 2.) Thus, the record reveals that
Plaintiff filed his motion for summary judgment only 11 days after the court entered the
scheduling order and seven (7) weeks before discovery was scheduled to end. At the
time Plaintiff filed his motion, Defendant had not yet received or reviewed Plaintiff’s
responses to Defendant’s discovery requests, which were served on Plaintiff on April 2,
2024. (Id. at 2.)

Plaintiff filed timely objections, arguing that the district court should reject the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation because Defendant was required to, and did not file,
an affidavit under Rule 56(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., and because the Magistrate Judge issued
the Report before reviewing Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a reply to
Defendant’s opposition memorandum and subsequently filed reply. (ECF No. 30.)
After a de novo review of the Report, 1 the Court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant
did not file an affidavit pursuant to Rule 56(f) on the ground that further discovery is
necessary to adequately respond to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. However,
Defendant filed an opposition motion explaining his need for further discovery to oppose
the summary judgment motion and opposing the motion on the merits. (ECF No. 21.)
Thus, the Court finds that Defendant’s motion served the same purpose as a Rule 56(f)
affidavit. Invs. Title Ins. Co. v. Bair, 232 F.R.D. 254, 257 (D.S.C. 2005) (findings that
“[b]ased upon the Scheduling Order and Defendant Bair's motions describing her need
for

additional discovery,

the

court

concludes

that

summary

judgment

would

be premature at this time”); Harrods Ltd v. Sixty Internet Doman Names, 302 F.3d 214,
244 (4th Cir. 2002) (holding that where eleven weeks of discovery remained on the
scheduling order, and the nonmoving party failed to submit a Rule 56(f) affidavit but
opposed the dismissal on the merits and informed the court of its need for more discovery,
the district court erred in granting summary judgment). Accordingly, the Court finds
Plaintiff’s first objection is without merit.

1 The magistrate makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report to which a specific objection is made, and this Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2

As to Plaintiff’s second objection, the Court notes that replies are generally
discouraged by the Local Rules of this District. See Local Rule 7.07. That being said, the
undersigned has reviewed Plaintiff’s reply and notes that Plaintiff does not assert any new
arguments therein on the issue of prematurity. (ECF No.31.) As such, Plaintiff’s reply
would not have had any impact on the sound reasoning of the Magistrate Judge as set
forth in the Report. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff’s second objection is without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts and specifically incorporates the
Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 25); overrules Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 30);
and denies Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 20) as premature.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge

March 11, 2025
Charleston, South Carolina

3