Sarratt v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 138

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 133 Report and Recommendation. 123 Motion for Emergency Pretrial Injunctive Relief is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 4/11/2019. (gpre, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION Michael Anthony Sarratt, a/k/a Michael ) A. Sarratt, a/k/a Goddess Shuggar ) Sarratt, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Bryan P. Stirling, ) ) Defendant. ) ________________________________ ) Case No. 8:16-cv-3486-DCC-JDA ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Pretrial Injunctive Relief. ECF No. 123. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). Defendant filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiff filed a reply. ECF Nos. 128, 130. On March 21, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied. ECF No. 104. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. Neither party has filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report=s recommendation. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. The Motion for Emergency Pretrial Injunctive Relief [123] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge April 11, 2019 Spartanburg, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 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?