Robinson v. Mack et al

Filing 68

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation. [Dkt. No. 63]. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief [Dkt. No. 31] is DENIED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 05/20/2013. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Corey Jawan Robinson,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
Albert Mack; Desserine Lloyd; Loretta
)
Aiken; Assoc. Warden Fred Thompson;
)
Major Thierry Nettles; Classification Ms. )
D. Bailey; Spt. T. Clark; Lolita M. Lee;
)
Sherisse D. Birch; Warden Wayne
)
McCabe; Cpt. Ann Sheppard; Tanya F.
)
McCants; Cpt. William Brightharp; IGC
)
B.J. Thomas; Cpt. McBride; Ann Hallman; )
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 5:13-cv-03358-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Dkt. No. 63], filed on April 22, 2013, recommending that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief [Dkt. No.
31] be denied. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. The
Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on these matters which the court
incorporates herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court.

The 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 is charged with making a de novo determination of those

1

portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report [Dkt. No. 63-1].
However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Report.
In the absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “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. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's
note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's
waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the District Court based upon such
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. [Dkt. No. 63]. It is
therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunctive Relief [Dkt. No. 31] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 20, 2013
Greenville, South Carolina

United States District Judge

2