Keith v. Cartledge et al
ORDER adopting 59 Report and Recommendation. The Court denies Plaintiff's motions listed in the R&R. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 38, 40, 42, 45, 49, 52, 56). Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/30/2013. (abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR,lSGi' ;'\
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA"" ,
Trovon Acquarius Keith,
Larry Cartledge; Florence Mauney;
Major Early; Rhonda Abston; Captain
Degeorgis; Sergeant Eich; William R.
Byars Jr.; Jon Ozmint; and Ms. Harris,
ZOIl SEP 30 A
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge ("R&R") that this Court deny several motions filed by Plaintiff, (Dkt. Nos. 19, 38,40,42,
45, 49, 52, 56). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R as the order of the
Court and therefore denies these motions.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (Dkt. No.1).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) DSC, this matter was
automatically referred to a Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling.
Since commencing this
action, Plaintiff has filed motions requesting transfer, (Dkt. Nos. 19, 56), for an order requiring
Defendants to take medical exams, (Dkt. No. 38, 40), requesting that he be provided certain
medication, (Dkt. No. 45), for a preliminary injunction relating to legal materials, (Dkt. No. 52),
and for entry of default against Defendants Harris, (Dkt. No. 42), and Ozmint, (Dkt. No. 49). On
September 5, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending the Court deny these
motions. (Dkt. No. 59). Plaintiff failed to file timely objections to the R&R.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
The Magistrate Judge liberally construed the pleadings, accurately summarized the law,
and correctly concluded that the Court should deny these motions.
The Magistrate Judge
accurately set forth the legal standard regarding preliminary injunctions and properly found the
Plaintiff could not satisfy that exacting standard. Accordingly, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs
motions requesting injunctive relief should be denied.
(Dkt. Nos. 19, 38, 40, 45, 52, 56).
Further, the Court agrees that Plaintiff is not entitled to entry of default as to Defendants Harris,
(Dkt. No. 42), and Ozmint, (Dkt. No. 49), because these Defendants filed timely Answers.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court agrees with and adopts the R&R as the order of
the Court. (Dkt. No. 59). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motions listed in the R&R.
(Dkt. Nos. 19, 38,40, 42, 45,49, 52, 56).
United States District Court Judge
September.l ;;, 2013
Charleston, South Carolina
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?