Sarratt v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 60

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopts 57 Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court DENIES with leave to refile Plaintiffs first 21 motion for preliminary injunction and motion to amend the first 27 motion for preliminary injunction. The Court FINDS AS MOOT Plaintiffs second 54 motion for preliminary injunction. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 9/11/2017. (gpre, )

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.
)
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections; )
Bryan P. Stirling, Director; and Sandra R. )
Barrett, Deputy Director,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 8:16-cv-03486-RBH-JDA

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against the above-captioned Defendants. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (R & R) of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin, made in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). See R & R [ECF No. 57].
The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court (1) deny with leave to refile Plaintiff’s first motion
for preliminary injunction and motion to amend the first motion for preliminary injunction; and (2) find
as moot Plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunction. R & R at 7–9.
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 this Court.
See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made, and the Court may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

No parties have filed objections to the R & R, and the time for doing so has expired.1 In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. 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 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)).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error and hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference the R & R [ECF No. 57] of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES with leave to refile Plaintiff’s first motion for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 21]
and motion to amend the first motion for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 27]. The Court FINDS AS
MOOT Plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 54].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Florence, South Carolina
September 11, 2017

1

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge

Plaintiff’s objections were due by August 28, 2017. See ECF Nos. 57 & 58.

2