Roberts v. Jones et al
Filing
30
ORDER adopting 26 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying 3 Motion for TRO; denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 8/26/2015.(ssam, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Brandon Roberts,
) Civil Action No. 2:15-483-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
Sidney B. Jones, III, Delinquent Tax Collector; )
Dorchester County,
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________ )
Plaintiff Brandon Roberts, (“Plaintiff”), an inmate proceeding pro se, filed the instant action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary
Gordon Baker for pre-trial handling.
On July 29, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, (“the
Report”), (ECF No. 26), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion or “Request for Temporary
Restraining Order / PI,” (ECF No. 3), be denied. Objections to the Report were due by August 17,
2015. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report, and the matter is now ripe for review by this
Court.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is
made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by
the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). 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).
Applying the above standards to the instant matter, the Court has carefully reviewed the
record, applicable law, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report, (ECF No. 26), and finding no clear error
in the Report, the Court adopts and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions
or “Requests for Temporary Restraining Order / PI,” (ECF No. 3), are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
August 26, 2015
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?