Mullinax v. Martin
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. No. 31 ), as the order of this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. No. 11 ) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 12/11/2014. (dsto, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Lt. James Martin,
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 31), recommending that Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary
Restraining OrderlInjunctive Relief (Dkt. No. 11) be denied. No party has filed objections to the
R & R. For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the R & R and DENIES Plaintiffs
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final detennination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28
U.S.c. § 636(b)(I). This Court is charged with making a de novo detennination of those
portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made. Here, however, because no objection
has been made, this Court "must 'only satisfy itselfthat there is no clear error on the face of the
This matter is stayed pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act because
Defendant Martin is currently serving on active duty in the military. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 38). The
deadline for Plaintiff to object to the R & R passed without objection before the Court stayed the
case. Because the Court's Order in no way affects the rights Defendant Martin, the Court issues
this Order despite the stay.
record in order to accept the recommendation. '" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, in
the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for
adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198,200 (4th Cir. 1983).
After reviewing Plaintiffs motion, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff has failed to specify the relief that he seeks; therefore, the Court cannot grant any relief.
The Court also agrees that Plaintiff has failed to show the four Winter factors. THEREFORE,
the Court, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. No. 31), as the
order of this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs (Dkt. No. 11) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
Charleston, South Carolina
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?