Goss v. Stirling et al

Filing 180

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 142 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, filed by Darrell L Goss. The Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 142) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/8/2019. (kric, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Bryan P. Stirling, Charles Wiliams,
)
)
Thomas Robertson, A. Gladwell,
Stephanie Marshall, Officer Stanley
)
Terry, Lt. Clarissa Jones, Deborah
)
Richter, Jennifer Franklin, Sgt. Warren
)
Peck, Verdeia Hall, John Doe 1, Officer
)
John Doe 2, Juanita Moss, Willie Smith,
)
Chaplain Barber, and Canteen Manager )
Yeldell,
)
)
Defendants. )
________________________________
Darrell L. Goss,

Civil Action No.: 6:18-3245-BHH

ORDER AND OPINION

Plaintiff Darrell L. Goss (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate at Leiber Correctional Institution
(“Lieber”) in Ridgeville, South Carolina. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for
injunctive relief. (ECF No. 142.) Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.
(ECF Nos. 151 & 152.)
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 Kevin F. McDonald for pretrial handling.
On August 22, 2019, Magistrate Judge McDonald issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief, which requests a
court order requiring Defendants to photocopy his handwritten legal papers. (ECF No. 154.)
The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief as he cannot
demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable injury without it and because South Carolina
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) personnel are not violating the SCDC copy policy in
refusing to copy Plaintiff’s handwritten documents. (See id. at 3.)

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 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made. On
August 22, 2019, Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 154 at 4.) However, he has not done so. 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).
After careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated herein by
reference. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 142) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
October 8, 2019
Charleston, South Carolina

2