Patrick v. Cartledge et al

Filing 59

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The recommended disposition in the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 35 ) is approved and incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 4 ) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/24/2016. (mcot, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Tyrone Patrick,

)
Civil Action No.: 5:16-321-BHH
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER AND OPINION
Warden Cartledge, Major Earley,
)
Captain Thoth, and Captain Golden,
)
)
Defendants. )
______________________________ )
)
Plaintiff Tyrone Patrick (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate at Perry Correctional Institution
(“PCI”) in Pelzer, South Carolina. On February 1, 2016, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional
right to outdoor exercise. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order on the same day. (ECF No. 4.) After some
delay due to the case needing to be brought into proper form and service of process
needing to be achieved, Defendants timely responded to Plaintiff’s Motion on May 2, 2016.
(ECF No. 26.)
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 Kaymani D. West for pretrial
handling. On May 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge West issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order. (ECF No. 35.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that
Plaintiff had not made an adequate showing to satisfy the four Winter1 factors needed to

1

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). See also Smith v. Ozmint, 444 F. Supp.
2d 502, 504 (D.S.C. 2006).

justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy he requests. See MicroStrategy Inc. v.
Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335, 339 (4th Cir. 2001). After the Magistrate Judge filed her
Report, Plaintiff filed an untimely Reply on May 26, 2016, largely rehashing his prior
assertions regarding an alleged deprivation of outdoor exercise and stating in conclusory
fashion that he had satisfied the elements necessary for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No.
39.)
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 portions of the
Report 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 the matter with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review
when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to
a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (“[D]e novo review [is] unnecessary in . . .
situations when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the
court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendation.”). In
the absence of a specific objection, the Court reviews the Magistrate’s conclusions only for
clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005).
On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 40), to which Defendants replied on June 1, 2016 (ECF No. 42). Plaintiff’s objections
are general and non-specific and do not direct the Court to any error in the Magistrate

Judge’s analysis. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court has conducted
a de novo review of the objections, the Report, and the record. Having done so, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis for this Court to deviate from the Magistrate
Judge’s recommended disposition. Plaintiff’s objections are therefore overruled, and the
Court adopts the Report in its entirety.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report, the Court
finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper. Accordingly, the recommended
disposition in the Report is approved and incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff’s
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 4) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge

August 24, 2016
Greenville, South Carolina