United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Cameron McGowan Currie Senior United States District Judge.
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr. (Garrett) brought this pro se
action alleging violations of his constitutional rights while
incarcerated in the South Carolina Department of Corrections.
This matter is before the court on Garrett's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 48) and Motion for Hearing on
the Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 52). Garrett also filed a
supplement to his motion for hearing. ECF No. 54. Defendants
filed a response in opposition. ECF No. 55.
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02 (B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial
proceedings. On December 14, 2018, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
recommending Garrett's motion for preliminary injunction
be denied. ECF No. 56. The Magistrate Judge advised the
parties of the procedures and requirements for filing
objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they
failed to do so. After several extensions of time, Garrett
filed objections on March 18, 2019. ECF No. 85. Defendants
have not replied to Garrett's objections.
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 (1976). The
court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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, 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).
Magistrate Judge found the relief Garrett seeks via
preliminary injunction is unavailable, and that Garrett
failed to show he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence
of injunctive relief. ECF No. 56 at 4. The Report concludes
“the loss of Garrett's legal materials does not
appear to have affected Garrett's ability to research and
prosecute his cases.” Id. Therefore, the
Report recommends denial of the motion for preliminary
objects to the Report. ECF No. 85. He complains of a
“conspiracy of retaliation” against him, details
the August 22, 2018 incident when he was sprayed with
chemical munitions, and objects to the Report's failure
to “include all the facts.” Id. at 4, 5.
He argues he named specific Defendants - Lasley, Berry,
Monaco, Campbell, and Jenkins - who were involved in
“illegally refusing to return 90% of Plaintiff's
Legal Files, Property, etc.” Id. at 3. He
cites Exhibits 1A, 2A, and 3A to his November 29, 2018 Reply
as showing the named individuals above lied about having
anything to do with his property. Id. at 3, 4.
Finally, Garrett argues “not having all of his legal
files, etc. is severely hindering Plaintiff from fighting
these Actions as well as his criminal incarceration.”
Id. at 5. He submits his papers regarding his
criminal case “have all been thrown away and most
can't be replaced, ” but has “hope that the
other 90% of his files and property are sitting somewhere in
a closet.” Id. at 9. He requests a hearing on
court agrees with the Report the preliminary injunction
requested is not available in this case. Garrett seeks a
preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to return his
legal files to him. ECF Nos. 48, 52. However, the individuals
Garrett argues refuse to return his property (Lasley, Berry,
Monaco, Campbell, and Jenkins) are not Defendants in this
case. Therefore, the court cannot order the
considering the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Garrett's
objections, the court agrees with the Report's
recommendation to deny the preliminary injunction. The Report
is therefore adopted and incorporated by reference. The
motions for preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 48, 52) are
denied. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge
for pretrial proceedings.
 Garrett initially filed one case with
many Defendants, which was reviewed by the Magistrate Judge
and determined to be, in actuality, four different actions
complaining of different acts at different institutions. ECF
No. 1. The individuals Garrett alleges destroyed or will not
return his legal files are not defendants in this action.
However, Lasley is a ...