Perry v. Wallace et al

Filing 39

ORDER The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 23); the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 21); and the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 20). Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 04/02/2024.(hcor, )

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

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden Terri Wallace, Kuturch
)
Gause, Ester Labrador, Andrew
)
Hedgepath, Bonnie Degraffenreid,
)
LeiAnn Boards, Heather Martin,
)
Vanessa Harris, Nichole Johnson,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 6:24-75-BHH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Tyrone Perry’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with his motion for a temporary
restraining order (ECF No. 20). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge for preliminary review.
On February 26, 2024, Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court deny
Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. In his Report, the Magistrate Judge
explained the applicable substantive standards for granting a request for a temporary
restraining order and ultimately found that Plaintiff has failed to make a clear showing that
he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).
Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right
to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. On

March 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed objections, and on March 7, he filed exhibits in support of his
motion for a temporary restraining order. (ECF Nos. 23, 25.) After review of the materials
submitted by Plaintiff, however, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not point to any error in
the Magistrate Judge’s legal analysis. Rather, Plaintiff merely rehashes his claims and
asserts that Defendants are depriving him of access to his medical records and to proper
medical care.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.

The

recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court
is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, the Court has thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and the additional
materials submitted by Plaintiff. After de novo review, the Court finds no merit to Plaintiff’s
objections and agrees with the Magistrate Judge, for the reasons set forth in the Report,
that Plaintiff has not made the requisite clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the
merits of his claims. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to a temporary
2

restraining order at this time.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 23); the Court
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 21); and the Court denies Plaintiff’s
motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 20).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
April 2, 2024
Charleston, South Carolina

3