Davis v. Brunson et al

Filing 41

ORDER adopting 36 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #24) is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 3/6/2014.(abuc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Mildenzel M. Davis, C/A No. 1:13-cv-03458-TLW-SVH PLAINTIFF v. Order Cpt. Brunson; Cpl. Benjamin; and Officer Ms. Davis, DEFENDANTS Plaintiff Mildenzel M. Davis, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this § 1983 action alleging violations of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at Florence County Detention Center. Defendants are employees at the detention center. The matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) filed on February 20, 2014 by Magistrate Judge Hodges, to whom this case was assigned. (Doc. #36.) In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #24). Plaintiff filed objections on February 20, 2014 (Doc. #36.) This matter is now ripe for decision. In reviewing the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the Court applies the following standard: The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether or not objections have been filed, 1 in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. Wallace v. Hous. Auth. of City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations omitted). In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and the objections. After careful review of the Report and the objections, for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the Report is ACCEPTED. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #24) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Terry L. Wooten Terry L. Wooten Chief United States District Judge March 6, 2014 Columbia, South Carolina 2

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?