Ashby v. Eagleton et al

Filing 51

ORDER accepting 17 , 26 , and 42 Report and Recommendations. It is ORDERED that Defendant Security Staff Evans CI is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process (ECF No. 17), an d Plaintiff's 12 and 21 Motions for TRO seeking an ex parte order is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's 12 and 21 Motions for Preliminary Injunction are DENIED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 1/20/15. (kmca) Modified on 1/21/2015: to correct Judge's signature date (kmca).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
William Ashby,
also known as William Mark Ashby,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Warden Eagleton; Security Staff Evans CI, )
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 8:14-cv-03330-JMC

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter
is before the court for review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF
No. 17), filed on September 30, 2014, recommending that Defendant Security Staff Evans CI be
dismissed from this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Additionally, before the court is the review of the magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 26), filed on
October 14, 2014, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO (ECF Nos. 12 and 21) seeking an
ex parte order be denied and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction should remain pending. Finally,
before the court is the review of the magistrate judge’s Report (ECF No. 42), filed on November 14,
2014, recommending Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 12 and 21) be denied.
The Reports set forth in detail the relevant facts and legal standards on this matter which the court
incorporates herein without a recitation.
The magistrate judge’s Report 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 Court is not bound by the recommendation

1

of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination.” Wallace v.
Hous. Auth., 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citing Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271
(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 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 his rights to file objections to the Reports (ECF Nos. 17 at 5, 26 at
4, and 42-1).

However, Plaintiff filed no objections to the Reports.

In the absence of objections to the magistrate judge's Reports, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). Rather, "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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Furthermore,
failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal
from the judgment of the District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
Therefore, after a thorough and careful review of the Reports and the records in this case, the
court finds the Reports provide an accurate summary of the facts and law. The court ACCEPTS the
Reports and Recommendations (ECF Nos.17, 26 and 42). For the reasons articulated by the
magistrate judge, it is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Security Staff Evans CI is DISMISSED
2

from this action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process (ECF No. 17), and
Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO (ECF Nos. 12 and 21) seeking an ex parte order is DENIED. It is
further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 12 and 21) are
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
January 20, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

3