Richardson v. Mahon et al

Filing 78

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court finds no clear error and therefore, adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R (ECF No. 64 ) of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 28 ). Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 06/02/2016. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Curtis Dale Richardson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Matt Mahon, Loris, S.C. Policeman, )
in his individual and official
)
capacity; Karen Shephard, Chief of )
Police of Loris, S.C., in her
)
individual and official capacity; and )
Officer Jeff Gore,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-03317-RBH-TER

ORDER

Plaintiff Curtis Dale Richardson, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this action
by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the above-named Defendants alleging
violations of his constitutional rights. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion seeking
preliminary injunctive relief. See ECF No. 28. The matter is now before the Court for review of the
Report and Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, who
recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.1 See R & R, ECF No. 64.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation 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). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was referred
to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling.

the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
No parties have filed objections to the R & R. In the absence of objections to the R & R, the
Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in
the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. 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 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)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and therefore
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 64] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief [ECF No. 28].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
June 2, 2016

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

2