United States District Court, District of South Carolina, Charleston Division
Richard Mark Gergel, United States District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 31), recommending that Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Injunctive Relief (Dkt. No. 11) be denied. No party has filed objections to the R «& R. For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the R & R and DENIES Plaintiffs motion.
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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the R & R to which specific objection is made. Here, however, because no objection has been made, this Court "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 & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P 72 advisory committee note). Moreover, in the absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198.200 (4th Cir. 1983).
After reviewing Plaintiff's motion, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has failed to specify the relief that he seeks; therefore, the Court cannot grant any relief The Court also agrees that Plaintiff has failed to show the four Winter factors. THEREFORE, the Court, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ...