Barton v. Harper et al

Filing 82

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; denying 68 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 9/15/2014.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
Mathew Harper, Perry Cor. Medical )
Staff; Dr. John Tomarchio; Dr.
)
Kocher, Opth.; William Byars Jr.
)
Dir. SCDC,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Bobby Joe Barton, #163629,

Civil Action No.: 9:13-cv-3067-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Bobby Joe Barton, #163629, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against the above named Defendants on November 12, 2013. See Compl., ECF No.
1. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. See R & R, ECF No. 75. In
the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s
motion for a preliminary injunction. See id. at 3.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. 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 Report and Recommendation 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 party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

In the absence of

objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to
give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (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.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated
by reference. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF
No. 68, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
September 15, 2014

2