United States District Court, D. South Carolina
August 14, 2014
Belay Reddick, Plaintiff,
Pamela Justice; Mary M. Mitchell; J. Hollett; Joseph Neal; Oscar Acosta; Wanda Harris; Roy Lathrop; Warren C. Holland; Lee Hamar; S. Taylor; K. Johnson; M. Cruz; S. Langford; B. Kemp; R. Celaya; D. Colon; D. Mercado; J. Simmons; E. Rayburn; T. Miller; R. Kelso; S. Lathrop; T. Talplacido; D. Ayotte; M. Walker; D. Barbareno; E. McLellan; T. Graves; J. Stivers; M. Strong; M. Moore; D. Franks; F. Hill, and F. Brockington, Defendants.
DAVID C. NORTON, District Judge.
The above referenced case is before this court upon the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctions and/or temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 13 and 32) and motion for an order to hear petitioner's testimony in TRO hearing via telephone conference (ECF No. 14) be denied.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge's report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). Objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation were timely filed by plaintiff on August 14, 2014.
In his objections, plaintiff states that the issues addressed within these motions have been resolved, therefore the motions are now moot. After a review of the record, it is therefore
ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctions and/or temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 13 and 32) and motion for an order to hear petitioner's testimony in TRO hearing via telephone conference (ECF No. 14) are deemed MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is hereby termed as MOOT.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.