Tennyson v. Alvin

Filing 33

ORDER adopting the 28 Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part Avin's 22 motion. Specifically, Tennyson's claims brought pursuant of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 63-7-430 and 63-7-440 are dismissed and all others claims against Avin remain pending. Furthermore, Avin's motion for a more definitive statement is denied. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 7/16/2021. (lbak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
ANGEL SHEREE’ TENNYSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JULIE ANN AVIN, for Mental Illness
Recovery Center,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:21-00039-MGL

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Angel Sheree’ Tennyson (Tennyson), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed this civil action against Defendant Julie Ann Avin (Avin) of Mental Illness Recovery Center,
Inc. (MIRCI) alleging Avin violated state and federal law by discriminating and retaliating against
her, as well as by providing inadequate housing.
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of
the United States Magistrate Judge recommending Avin’s motion to dismiss, or alternatively,
motion for a more definite statement, be granted in part and denied in part. 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 a recommendation 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 April 19, 2021. To date, neither party has filed
any objections. “[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Moreover,
a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–46 (4th Cir.
1985).
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard
set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the
judgment of the Court Avin’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Specifically, Tennyson’s claims brought pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 63-7-430 and 63-7-440
are DISMISSED and all other claims against Avin remain PENDING. Furthermore, Avin’s
motion for a more definitive statement is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 16th day of July 2021, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are 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.
2