Henderson v. Myers et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Report and Recommendation 35 is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff's Motion for an Injunction (ECF No. 29 ) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/17/2016. (dsto, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
) Civil Action No.: 4:16-947-BHH-TER
Ronaldo D. Myers, Director,
Dr. Randolph, Medical Physician,
Mr. Drew, Mental Health Counselor,
Lt. Sligh, Disciplinary Hearing Officer &
Sgt. Jackson, Supervisor Over
Lt. Seward, Corrections Officer,
Aryee Henderson, #237887,
Plaintiff Aryee Henderson(“Plaintiff”) is an inmate at Kirkland Correctional Institution
(“KCI”) in Columbia, South Carolina. On March 23, 2016, Plaintiff proceeding pro se, filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional
rights. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion for an Injunction on July 15, 2016, (ECF
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pretrial
handling. On September 9, 2016, Magistrate Judge Rogers issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for an Injunction.
(ECF No. 35.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations fall short of
meeting the necessary elements under the Winter1 standard to grant his motion.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008).
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 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. On
September 9, 2016, Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 35 at 3). However, he has not done so. 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.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by
reference. Plaintiff’s Motion for an Injunction (ECF No. 29) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 17, 2016
Greenville, 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?