Stanfield v. Charleston County Court et al

Filing 23

ORDER deferring ruling on 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 4 Motion for TRO; adopting Report and Recommendations re 12 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on April 23, 2015.(tlim, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
David D. Stanfield,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Charleston County Court; Thomas L.
)
Hughston, Jr.; and Kristi L. Harrington,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

C.A. No.: 2:15-cv-0756-PMD-MGB
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 12), recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff David D.
Stanfield’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO (ECF No. 4) (“Motion”) as
it relates to his request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Plaintiff has filed Objections
to the R&R (ECF No. 16). The Court has carefully reviewed and considered the entire record,
including Plaintiff’s Objections, and finds that the Magistrate Judge fairly and accurately
summarized the relevant facts and applied the correct principles of law. Accordingly, the Court
hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and incorporates it into this Order.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to this Court on dispositive motions
heard pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 The recommendation has
no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). Parties are allowed to make a written
______________________________________________________________________________
1. In the present case, the Magistrate Judge entered a recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motion rather than a
pretrial order pursuant to Rule 72(a). Accordingly, the Court will review the R&R and consider Plaintiff’s
Objections under Rule 72(b). Nevertheless, both standards lead this Court to the same conclusion, as the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R easily withstands Plaintiff’s Objections under either level of scrutiny.

objection to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days
after being served a copy of the recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of a recommendation to
which a specific objection is registered, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify the
magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Additionally, the Court may receive additional evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions. Id. A party’s failure to object is accepted as an agreement with the
conclusions of the magistrate judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). In the absence of
a timely filed, specific objection—or as to those portions of the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which no specific objection is made—this Court “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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, absent specific objections, this Court need
not provide any explanation for adopting the magistrate judge’s analysis and recommendation.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983).
DISCUSSION
On February 23, 2015, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendants
Charleston County Court; Thomas L. Hughston, Jr.; and Kristi L. Harrington (collectively
“Defendants”).2

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that two judgments were issued against him

without proper notice in “Charleston County Court” on May 12, 2011, in violation of his “civil
rights.” (Pl.’s Compl. 1, 3, ECF No. 1). Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under
the “Declaratory Judgement [sic] Act and other applicable Federal statutes.” (Id. at 1). Along
______________________________________________________________________________
2

.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 73.20(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), all pretrial proceedings have been referred to a United
States Magistrate Judge.

2

with his Complaint, Plaintiff also filed the present Motion requesting preliminary injunctive
relief, as well as a temporary restraining order, enjoining the enforcement of the two judgments.
Plaintiff’s Motion was accompanied by a Memorandum in Support.
On February 26, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order (ECF No. 10) giving
Plaintiff leave to serve notice of his Motion on Defendants, as required by Rule 65(a)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The same day, the Magistrate Judge also entered the instant
R&R, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion as it relates to his request for a TRO.
More specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that the TRO should not issue because
Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 65(b)(1)(A), which provides that a court may grant a TRO
only if “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and
irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard
in opposition.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

The Magistrate Judge correctly noted that

Plaintiff’s Complaint was not verified and his Motion was not accompanied by an affidavit.
Additionally, the Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Plaintiff’s Motion failed to address
the issue of notice to adverse parties and therefore does not comply with Rule 65(b)(1)(B), which
requires that “the movant’s attorney certif[y] in writing any efforts made to give notice [to
adverse parties] and the reasons why it should not be required.” Id. R. 65(b)(1)(B).
On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Affidavit in Support of Preliminary Injunction and
TRO (ECF No. 15). Shortly thereafter, on March 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Objections to the
R&R. Plaintiff’s Objections state, in full, as follows:
1. Plaintiff has notified all Defendants by Certified mail of the Motion
for Preliminary injunction and TRO, as well as the initial complaint. See attached
Certified mail receipts.

3

2. Plaintiff has filed an affidavit with the court explaining irreparable
harm if the TRO is denied. Plaintiff has included a copy of the Affidavit to all
defendants in his service.
(Pl.’s Objections 1, ECF 16). As referenced, Plaintiff attached copies of the Certified Mail
receipts to his Objections.
Notably, Plaintiff’s Objections do not allege or identify any specific error committed by
the Magistrate Judge; instead, Plaintiff simply offers an update regarding the deficiencies
identified in the R&R. Accordingly, such an objection lacks the requisite specificity under Rule
72(b) to trigger, or otherwise invite, de novo review. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315–16.
Therefore, the Court, which has “satisf[ied] itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record,” id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee note) (internal quotation marks
omitted), accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and fully incorporates it into this
Order. To the extent Plaintiff merely attempts to provide an update as to the recent filings in
support of his Motion, the Court hereby refers and recommits this matter to the Magistrate Judge
for consideration in the context of Plaintiff’s remaining request for preliminary injunctive relief.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R.

It is

THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED as it relates to the TRO.
Accordingly, this action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further pretrial matters.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 23, 2015
Charleston, South Carolina

4