McFadden et al v. Butler et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, denying plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, 28 Report and Recommendations, Motion denied: 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 12 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Bernard McFadden. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on June 16, 2011. (kbos)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Bernard McFadden, #199135,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Mrs. Butler, FNU, Food Supervisor of KCI )
Mr. Thomas, FNU, Kitchen Manager of
)
KCI; Mrs. Marshall Fullmer, Nutritionist
)
For SCDC; Mrs. Marshall, Food Supervisor )
of KCI, in their individual or personal
)
capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

C.A. No. 3:10-3104-JMC
ORDER

This matter is now before the court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation [Doc. 28], filed on March 29, 2011, recommending Defendants’ Motion for
Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 12] be denied on the basis that Plaintiff failed to provide a legal basis
for the requested relief. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant facts and
legal standards on this matter which the court incorporates herein without a recitation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those

1

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation or
recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Bernard McFadden is a pro se state prisoner pursuing this civil action against the
Defendants alleging that his constitutional rights have been violated because he contends that the
Defendants serve inadequate portions of food and that the diet served is not nutritionally adequate.
Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Doc.
31]. Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific
objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate
review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce, 727
F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Upon review, the court finds that the Plaintiff’s objections are non-specific, unrelated to the
dispositive portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, or merely restate his
claims. Therefore, after a thorough review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
and the record in this case, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and
incorporates it herein.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 12] is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

s/ J. Michelle Childs
United States District Judge
June 16, 2011
Greenville, South Carolina

3