Bryan v. SCDC et al
Filing
55
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court ACCEPTS the Report. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/16/09. (swel, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Terrence Terrell Bryan, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) South Carolina Department of Corrections, ) Warden Cartledge, and Responsible ) Officials, ) ) Respondents. ) ____________________________________)
Civil Action No.: 4:08-cv-1590-TLW-TER
ORDER
Petitioner, Terrence Terrell Bryan ("petitioner"), brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. #1). The petitioner then filed a motion for summary judgment on May 16, 2008. (Doc. #12). The respondents filed a motion for summary judgment on July 23, 2008. (Doc. #25). The petitioner filed a response to the respondents' motion on September 8, 2008. (Doc. #37). The respondents also filed a motion for sanctions on August 7, 2008. (Doc. #30). The petitioner filed a response in opposition to the respondents' motion for sanctions on September 15, 2008. (Doc. #38). This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case had previously been assigned. (Doc. #45). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant the respondents' motion for summary judgment, deny the petitioner's motion for summary judgment, and deny the respondents' motion for sanctions. (Doc. #45). The petitioner filed objections to the report. (Doc. #54). In conducting this review, the Court applies the following
standard: The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections...The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. (Doc. #45). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Terry L. Wooten United States District Judge March 16, 2009 Florence, South Carolina
]]>
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?
