Tyler v. State of South Carolina

Filing 59

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING RESPONDENT'S AND PETITIONER'S MOTIONS TO DISMISS: After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, t he Court overrules Tylers objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein.Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that both Respondent's and Petitioner's motions to dismissed are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 05/22/2023. (apsn)

9:22-cv-01623-MGL-MHC

Date Filed 05/22/23

Entry Number 59

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
LARRY JAMES TYLER,
Petitioner,

DIRECTOR OF THE DARLINGTON
COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Respondent.

§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:22-01623-MGL-MHC
§
§
§
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DENYING RESPONDENT’S AND PETITIONER’S
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Petitioner Larry James Tyler (Tyler) has filed
an interlocutory appeal in this case. The Fourth Circuit, however, may exercise jurisdiction only
over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§•1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46
(1949). The “provisional decisions” Tyler seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable
interlocutory or collateral orders. Therefore, it necessarily follows that this Court retains jurisdiction
over this case.
Tyler filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition against Respondent Director of the Darlington
County Detention Center (the Director). The Court has jurisdiction over the matter in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the
United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the Director’s motion to dismiss the petition and Tyler’s

9:22-cv-01623-MGL-MHC

Date Filed 05/22/23

Entry Number 59

Page 2 of 3

motion to dismiss the Director’s motion to dismiss be denied. 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 May 2, 2023, and the Clerk entered Tyler’s
objections on May 18, 2023. The Court has carefully considered the objections, but holds them to
be without merit. It will therefore enter judgment accordingly.
In Tyler’s objections, he fails to present any convincing reason why the Court should decline
to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s suggestion that the two motions to dismiss be denied. Therefore,
the Court will overrule the objections.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court overrules Tyler’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein.
Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that both Respondent’s and Petitioner’s motions to
dismissed are DENIED.

2

9:22-cv-01623-MGL-MHC

Date Filed 05/22/23

Entry Number 59

Page 3 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 22nd day of May, 2023, in Columbia, South Carolina.

s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Tyler is hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date
hereof, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3