Mayfield v. Neville et al

Filing 53

ORDER adopting 48 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Wallace W Dixon; denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Wallace W Dixon on 9/19/2014.(ssam, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Gary C. Mayfield,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Dr. Neville; Nurse Fulton; Warden
Bush; Dr. Moore; Dr. Tomarchio; Sgt.
Jenkins; Counselor Breon,
Defendants.
______________________________

) Civil Action No.: 2:14-14-BHH
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Gary C. Mayfield (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate at Lee Correctional Institution
(“LCI”) in Bishopville, South Carolina. On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff proceeding pro se, filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on January 2,
2014. (ECF No. 3.) Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
(ECF No. 45.)
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 Wallace W. Dixon for pretrial
handling.

On August 14, 2014, Magistrate Judge Dixon issued a Report and

Recommendation recommending that the court deny Plaintiff's motion for a Preliminary
Injunction. (ECF No. 48.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff had not properly
shown all four Winter1 factors needed to grant his motion.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

1

The

The responsibility to make a final

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 364, 172 L.Ed.2d
249 (2008)

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
August 14, 2014, Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 48 at 5). 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 approved and incorporated herein by
reference. Plaintiff's motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
September 12, 2014
Greenville, South Carolina

-2-