Breyan v. Thomas et al

Filing 43

ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying 16 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 16 Motion for TRO. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 6/13/2017.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

Michael A. Breyan, #332098,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Capt. Thomas Commander,
)
A/W Kenneth Sharp, and W arden
)
Cecilia Reynolds,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-3926-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule

73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
preliminary determinations. On May 25, 2017, Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker
considered Plaintiff’s “motion for preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order”
and issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and
recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion based on his failure to make any
showing that he is entitled to the requested relief. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of his right to file written objections to the Report
within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to

which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the
Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has failed to
assert any viable basis for the Court to grant the relief he seeks.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 41) and
denies Plaintiff’s “motion for preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order” (ECF
No. 16).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
June 13, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

2