Johnson v. Taylor Bean Whitaker Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 34

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

ORDER

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.

2