Goss v. Stirling et al

Filing 161

ORDER AND OPINION adopting the 146 Report and Recommendation and denying Plaintiff's 131 motion for peliminary injunction. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/3/2019. (lbak)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Bryan P. Stirling (as Director), Warden
)
)
Charles Williams, Warden Joel
Anderson, Warden Aaron Joyner,
)
Warden Michael Stephen, Warden Scott )
Lewis, Warden Willie Davis, Warden
)
Richard Cothran, Warden Levern
)
Cohen, Warden Donnie E.
)
Stonebreaker, Warden Terrie Wallace,
)
Warden Gary Lane, Warden John Pate,
)
and Warden Patricia Yeldell,
)
)
Defendants. )
________________________________
Darrell L. Goss,

Civil Action No.: 1:18-2124-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Darrell L. Goss (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate at Leiber Correctional Institution
(“Lieber”) in Ridgeville, South Carolina. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for
preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 131.) Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief. (ECF Nos. 139 & 140.)
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pretrial
handling. On September 17, 2019, Magistrate Judge Hodges issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
injunction, which requests a court order requiring Defendants to photocopy his handwritten
legal papers. (ECF No. 146.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff is not entitled
to injunctive relief as he has not demonstrated a clear likelihood of success on the merits,
has failed to show that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury in the absence of relief, has

failed to show that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and the requested injunction
would not serve the public interest. (See id. at 4.)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). 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). The Court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. On
September 17, 2019, Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 146 at 6.) However, he has not done so. In the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must
“only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005).
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by
reference. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 131) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 3, 2019
Charleston, South Carolina
2