Northcutt et al v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 62

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 42 ) and denies Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6 ). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 08/09/2018. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Civil Action No. 4:17-3301-BHH-TER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
vs.
)
)
South Carolina Department of
)
Corrections; Bryan P. Stirling,
)
Director of the South Carolina
)
Department of Corrections; Joseph
)
McFadden Former Warden of Lieber
)
Correctional Institution; Joel Anderson
)
Former Interim Warden of Lieber
)
Correctional Institution; Randall
)
Williams, Warden of Lieber Correctional
)
Institution; Willie D. Davis, Warden of
)
Kirkland Reception and Evaluation
Center; and Jana Hollis, Unit Manager of )
)
Death Row and Maximum Security Unit
)
at Kirkland Reception and Evaluation
)
Center,
)
Defendants. )
________________________________ )
)
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Clinton Northcutt; Bayan Aleskey; James
Bryant; Luzenski Cottrell; Taylor Cross
(f/k/a Jonathan Binney); Willliam
Dickerson, Jr.; Ron Finklea; Jerry Inman;
Richard Moore; James Robertson; Brad
Sigmon; Stephen Stanko; Norman
Starnes; Sammie Stokes; Bobby Stone;
Gary Terry; and Louis Winkler,

(ECF No. 6.) In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations. On June 26, 2018, Magistrate Judge
Thomas E. Rogers, III, considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No.
6) and issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and

recommending that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ motion because Plaintiffs have failed to make
the requisite showing justifying the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction. (ECF
No. 42.) Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiffs of their right to file written
objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. (ECF No. 42-1.)
To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident 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 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the
applicable law, and the findings of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the
Court finds no error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiffs have failed to
make the requisite showing justifying the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 42) and
denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6).
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 9, 2018
Greenville, South Carolina

3