United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Darrell L. Goss, Plaintiff,
Bryan P. Stirling; Charles Williams; Joel Anderson; Aaron Joyner; Michael Stephen; Scott Lewis; Willie Davis; Richard Cothran; Levern Cohen; Donnie E. Stonebreaker; Terrie Wallace; Gary Lane; John Pate; Patricia Yeldell Defendants.
Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff's pro se
complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant
to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., the matter was referred to
a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary
determinations. On February 22, 2019, United States
Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker issued a Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) examining and
ultimately recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's
motion for a temporary restraining order, or in the
alternative, for a preliminary injunction. Attached to the
Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file
objections to the Report within fourteen days of receiving a
copy. Plaintiff did not file objections, and Defendants filed
a reply on March 6, 2019, offering no opposition to the
Magistrate Judge's Report.
Report, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff failed
to establish the elements necessary to obtain a temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction. The Magistrate
Judge found that Plaintiff failed to show: (1) that he is
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief; (3) that
the balance of the equities weighs in his favor; or (4) that
an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008).
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 (1976). The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of
those portions of the Report to which specific objections are
made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or
recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of
specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for
clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
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 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.'”) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72
advisory committee's note).
because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the
record, the applicable law, and the findings of the
Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court
finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge
that Plaintiff will not suffer irreparable harm if his motion
is not granted.
the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report
(ECF No. 78) and denies Plaintiff's second motion for a
temporary restraining order, or in the alternative, for a
preliminary injunction (ECF No. 67).
IS SO ORDERED.
of Right to File Objections to Report and
parties are advised that they may file specific written
objections to this Report and Recommendation with the
District Judge. Objections must specifically identify
the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
objections are made and the basis for such
objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely
filed objection, 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory
written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of
the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States
District Court Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
to timely file specific written objections to this Report and
Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal
from a judgment of the District Court based upon such
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v.
Collins, 7 ...