Harrison v. Epps et al
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 10 . Plaintiffsmotion for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 4, is denied, and this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 11/6/2017. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Willie Jeff Harrison, #242170,
Frank Epps, David E. Wagner, Gordon E.
Seneruis, State Budget and Control Board,
C/A No.: 8:17-cv-02104-TLW
Plaintiff Willie Jeff Harrison, proceeding pro se, filed this action on August 8, 2017,
alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. Also on
August 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Motion For An Injunction Order To be Taken against The
Defendants.” ECF No. 4. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) filed on August 22, 2017, by United States Magistrate Judge
Kevin F. McDonald, ECF No. 10, to whom this case was assigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), (D.S.C.). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994). Id. The deadline to file objections was September 5, 2017. 1 However, Plaintiff failed to
file objections to the Report. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
The Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Report to
which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a change of address on September 12, 2017. Thereafter, the
Court mailed the Report, ECF No. 10, including the Notice of Right to File Objections to Report
and Recommendation, to Plaintiff’s new address. Plaintiff did not file objections in response to the
Report that was mailed to his updated address.
recommendations contained therein. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, in the absence of objections to the
Report, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). In such a case, “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
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
In light of this standard, the Court has carefully reviewed the Report, the relevant filings,
and the applicable law. After careful consideration, the Court accepts the factual and legal analysis
by the Magistrate Judge and notes that Plaintiff has not filed objections. Accordingly, the Court
hereby ACCEPTS the Report, ECF No. 10. For the reasons stated in the Report, Plaintiff’s motion
for preliminary injunction, ECF No. 4, is DENIED, and this action is hereby DISMISSED without
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten____________
Chief United States District Judge
November 6, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
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?