Liewald v. Lieber CI et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 120 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court FINDS AS MOOT 79 Plaintff's motion for summary judgment, 90 Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the altern ative, for summary judgment and 97 Plaintiff's motion to strike and therefore DENIES these three motions. The Court RECOMMITS this matter to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 4/24/2017. (gpre, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Clifton Daryl Ray Liewald,
Warden McFadden, Capt. Brightharp,
Lt. R. Cooper, Capt. Thomas, Tamara
Ravenell, Sherisse Burch, Nurse Holcomb, )
Armand Cole, Major Ford, Major Nettles, )
and Christine Long,
Civil Action No.: 8:16-cv-00859-RBH-JDA
Plaintiff Clifton Daryl Ray Liewald, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-captioned Defendants. The matter is before the Court
for review of the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn
D. Austin, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of
South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 120. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court find as
moot the following three motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, (2) Defendants’ motion
to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and (3) Plaintiff’s motion to strike. R & R at
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 those portions of the R & R 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. 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 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)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 120] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court FINDS AS MOOT (1) Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 79], (2)
Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [ECF No. 90], and (3)
Plaintiff’s motion to strike [ECF No. 97] and therefore DENIES these three motions. The Court
RECOMMITS this matter to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial handling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
April 24, 2017
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Defendants’ objections were due by March 31, 2017, and Plaintiff’s objections were due by April 3, 2017.
See ECF No. 120.
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?