Chavez-Romero v. US Department of Education
ORDER ACCEPTING 33 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiff's 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 3/1/12. (kmca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
United States Department of
Education, Federal Offset Unit,
C.A. No. 6:11-cv-01639-JMC
This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) [Doc. 33], filed on November 9, 2011, recommending that Plaintiff’s
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 3],1 be denied. Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief
for Teacher Loan Forgiveness. The Report and Recommendation sets forth in detail the relevant
facts and legal standards on this matter, and the court incorporates the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation herein without a recitation.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 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
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made, and the court
Plaintiff did not file a formal motion. Instead, Plaintiff filed a service letter to the Clerk of
Court enclosing her pro se Complaint, within which she requested a preliminary injunction relief
order. [Doc. 3].
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 her right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation [Doc.
33-1]. Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 36]. In her
objections, Plaintiff relies on admissions in Defendant’s Answer to the Amended Complaint [Doc.
23] that Plaintiff worked for Head Start in Schenectady, New York, and her arguments that she is
requesting cancellation of her debt for the eligible loan and that she will prevail on the merits of the
case. As a result, Plaintiff contends that she does not have to prove any of the elements to obtain
preliminary injunctive relief. Although Defendant did not file a reply to Plaintiff’s objections,
Defendant has maintained that Plaintiff’s loan is ineligible under the Teacher Loan Forgiveness
program. [Doc. 23]. Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to address the Magistrate Judge’s finding that “no
injunction may be issued against the Department of Education pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1082(a)(2),
and offset of Social Security benefits is permitted under Lockhart v. United States, et al., 546 U.S.
142, 145 (2005).” [Doc. 33 at 2].
After careful review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s
objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the Report. [Doc. 33]. Therefore, for the reasons
articulated by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 3] is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
March 1, 2012
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?