Gainey v. Kelly et al
Filing
26
ORDER ACCEPTING 18 Report and Recommendations; DENYING 14 Motion for TRO filed by Danny Ray Gainey. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 7/27/2011. (mbro, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Danny Ray Gainey,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
Nurse R. Kelly, Nurse Nancy Hiest, and
)
Nurse Dawn Colman,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No. 6:11-1247-TLW-KFM
ORDER
Danny Ray Gainey, (“plaintiff”), brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983 on May 25, 2011. (Doc. # 1).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald, to whom this case
had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order be denied. (Doc. # 18). The plaintiff filed no
objections to the Report.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge=s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. '
636. In the absence of objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required
to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge=s Report. For the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge=s Report
and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 18). Therefore, the motion for a temporary
restraining order is DENIED. (Doc. # 14).
IT IS SO ORDERED
____s/Terry L. Wooten____
United States District Judge
July 27, 2011
Florence, South Carolina
2
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?