Causey v. Palmer et al

Filing 80

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 63 ), and the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 15 ). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/30/2020. (dsto, )

4:20-cv-01724-BHH-TER

Date Filed 10/30/20

Entry Number 80

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Jimmy H. Causey,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
John Palmer, Kevin Borem, Joseph
)
Perks, Jonathan Thomas, Coata
)
Kimbrell, David Chandler, John Doe #1, )
and John Doe #2,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 4:20-1724-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the pro se civil action filed by Plaintiff Jimmy
H. Causey (“Plaintiff” or “Causey”). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge for preliminary determinations.
On September 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers III issued a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”), addressing Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction
and recommending that the Court deny the motion based on Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the
four factors to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See Winter v. Nat’l Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). Attached to the Report was a notice advising the
parties of the right to file specific, written objections to the Report within fourteen days of
receiving a copy. 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

4:20-cv-01724-BHH-TER

Date Filed 10/30/20

Entry Number 80

Page 2 of 2

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 and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear
error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the four factors to warrant the issuance of a preliminary
injunction.
Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF
No. 63), and the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 15).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 30, 2020
Charleston, South Carolina

2