Laureano v. Jones

Filing 100

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions for Preliminary Injunctions 23 , 69 and for Temporary Restraining Order 55 are DENIED; Defendant's Summary Judgment Motion 26 is GRANTED; and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 12/2/2011. (mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
William Laureano,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Captain FNU Jones,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

C/A No. 1:11-779-TMC

OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., all pretrial proceedings were referred to a Magistrate Judge.

On November 2, 2011,

Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report")
recommending Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. # 26) be granted and
Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunctions (Dkt. # 23 and 69) and for a Temporary
Restraining Order (Dkt. # 55) be denied. (Dkt. # 88). The Magistrate Judge provided
Plaintiff a notice advising him of his right to file objections to the Report. (Dkt. # 88
Attach. # 1). On November 17, 2011, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report. (Dkt. # 95).
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report to which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district
court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge's
report to which objections have been filed. Id. The district court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only general and conclusory objections that do not

direct the court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and
recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir.1982). The Report
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's objections and finds that his
objections are non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Magistrate
Judge's Report, or merely restate his claims. Plaintiff asks the court to consider over
fifty citations to cases and merely reiterates the arguments he made in response to
Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion. The Magistrate Judge has already conducted
an analysis of these arguments, and Plaintiff fails to specifically argue where the
Magistrate Judge erred in that analysis. In the absence of specific objections, this Court
need not explain its reasons for adopting the recommendation.
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the
standard set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections are without merit.
Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions for Preliminary Injunctions (Dkt. # 23 and 69) and for
Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. # 55) are DENIED; Defendant’s Summary Judgment
Motion (Dkt. # 26) is GRANTED; and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
December 2, 2011
Greenville, South Carolina

2

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3
and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3