C. Holmes v. Terrance C. Cole, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration

Despite appellant’s timely request, the lower appellate court failed to consider change in the law which occurred after submission of the case requiring remand/reversal: Loper Bright et al. v. Raimondo et al., 603 U.S. 369 (2024).

Based on the original complaint, the lower court’s 02/27/24 opinion (ECF 83) granting defendant’s motion to dismiss is reversible as a matter of law because it overlooks and fails to address the timelyfiled, verified amended complaint which moots the original complaint.

The lower court’s 02/27/24 opinion (ECF 83) granting defendant’s motion to dismiss is reversible as a matter of law including inappropriate dismissal of novel questions of law raised in the timely-filed, verified amended complaint.

Whether the lower court’s granting of the effective stay contained in ECF No. 68 is internally inconsistent with the lower court’s denial of stay and PI (Preliminary Injunction) requiring reversal and whether the lower court’s granting of the effective stay contained in ECF No. 68 supports petitioner's timely request for stay pending resolution herein.

Whether the inapplicable Local Civil Rule (LCR) 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D. S.C.) authorizes magistrate’s R&R without consent under the facts. See LCR 73.02(B)(2)(d) (All pretrial proceedings in civil rights cases challenging prison conditions or conditions of confinement).

Given the totality of circumstances, the lower court’s 02/09/24 opinion (ECF 71) denying motion for hearing and recusal is reversible as a matter of law regarding appearance of and/or partiality in fact including predetermined outcome with denial of recusal before an opportunity to be heard at the requested hearing and before a full and fair airing with determination on the merits.