Martin v. SCDC et al
ORDER RULING ON 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Brandon Lee Martin. It is hereby ordered that plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is denied. The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Gossett for further proceedings. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted as the order of this Court. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 10/21/2015. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Brandon Lee Martin,
Warden Joseph McFadden, Lieber CI,
) C.A. #0:15-1570-PMD-PJG
The above-captioned case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation
that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied. Because plaintiff is pro se, this matter
was referred to the magistrate judge.1
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate
judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent
prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court
to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's
report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate
court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 United States Code, § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local
Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in
cases filed under Title 42 United States Code, § 1983, and submit findings and recommendations
to this Court.
(1984).2 No objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's report.
A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this
case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is hereby
ordered that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied. The case is referred back to
Magistrate Judge Gossett for further proceedings.
ORDERED, that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted as the order
of this Court.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 21, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina
In Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985), the court held "that a pro se litigant
must receive fair notification of the consequences of failure to object to a magistrate judge's
report before such a procedural default will result in waiver of the right to appeal. The notice
must be 'sufficiently understandable to one in appellant's circumstances fairly to appraise him of
what is required.'" Id. at 846. Plaintiff was advised in a clear manner that his objections had to
be filed within ten (10) days, and he received notice of the consequences at the appellate level of
his failure to object to the magistrate judge's report.
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?