Johnson v. Taylor Bean Whitaker Mortgage Corporation et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 31 Report and Recommendations, denying 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Michael Johnson. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 11/17/2010. (jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA A IK E N DIVISION M ic h a e l Johnson, et al., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Taylor Bean Whitaker Mortgage Corp.; ) M E R S ; John Doe; and Jane Doe, ) ) D e fe n d a n t s . ) ____________________________________)
C/A No. 1:10-CV-2557-MBS
P la in tiff Michael Johnson filed this action pro se on October 1, 2010. Complaint, ECF No. 1 . On the same day, Mr. Johnson filed a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and p r e lim in a r y injunction, in which he sought a court order e n j o i n i n g the Respondents [Taylor Bean Whitaker Mortgage Corporation] et al. their e m p l o ye e s , agents, successors, or assigns, from making any effort to sell, or further e n c u m b e r the title to, take possession of, or in any way occupy Michael Johnsons' p ro p e rty, harass or intimidate Michael Johnson in any manner and for such other and a d d i ti o n a l relief as the Court deems just and equitable, including a Preliminary In ju n c tio n at the earliest possible opportunity. P l.'s Mot. ¶ 10, ECF No. 2. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling. On October 1, 2010, the M a gis tra te Judge issued a report and recommendation (the "First R&R") recommending that insofar a s Mr. Johnson sought a TRO, his motion be denied; but that a hearing on his request for a p re lim i n a ry injunction be scheduled as soon as possible, so that the matter could be heard before the n e x t public auction in Aiken County. First R&R, ECF No. 6. Mr. Johnson did not object and, by o rd e r dated October 13, 2010, the court adopted the First R&R and recommitted the matter to the M a gistra te Judge for a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. Order 2, ECF No. 14.
O n October 27, 2010, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the motion for a preliminary in j u n c tio n and, on October 29, 2010, issued a Second R&R, recommending that the motion be denied i n its entirety. ECF No. 31. The Second R&R was mailed to Mr. Johnson with a notice advising him th a t any specific written objections must be filed with the court within fourteen days of the date of s e rv ic e of the R&R. Id. at 4. That deadline has since passed and Mr. Johnson has not filed any o b je c tio n s to the Second R&R. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has n o presumptive weight. The responsibility for making a final determination remains with this court. M a th e w s v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo d e t e rm in a t io n of any portions of the R&R to which a specific objection is made. The court may a c c e p t, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or m a y recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the a b s e n c e of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead m u s t "only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the re c o m m e n d a tio n ." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). The court has carefully reviewed the record and agrees with the recommendation made by th e Magistrate Judge. The court therefore adopts the Second R&R and incorporates it herein by re fe re n c e . Mr. Johnson's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s / Margaret B. Seymour M a r ga r e t B. Seymour United States District Judge C o l u m b ia , South Carolina N o v e m b e r 17, 2010.
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?