Al-Haqq v. Dean et al

Filing 55

ORDER adopting 48 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying 36 Motion for Injunction. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 7/25/2017.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Bilal A. Al-Haqq,
Plaintiff,
v.
A/W Dean; Major Chavalus; Capt. Pat;
Capt. Coleman; Capt. Commander; Lt.
Redding; Sgt. Canty; Ofc. Graham; Ofc.
Pressley; Ofc. Ragan; Ofc. Kennedy; Dr.
Alden; Dr. Lemons,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:17-0535-TMC-MGB

ORDER

Plaintiff, Bilal A. Al-Haqq (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil
Rule 73.02, DSC, this matter was initially referred to a magistrate judge. Before the court is the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Plaintiff’s pending
motion for an injunction (ECF No. 36) be denied. (ECF No. 48). Plaintiff was advised of his right
to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 48 at 5). However, Plaintiff has not filed objections, and
the time to do so has now run.
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of
objections to the Report, this court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
After a thorough review, the court finds no clear error and, therefore, adopts the Report (ECF
No. 48) and incorporates it herein by reference. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction
(ECF No. 36) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
July 25, 2017
Anderson, South Carolina

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2