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, )
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?