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)

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