United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Michael E. Wolfe, Plaintiff,
Nfn. Rynolds, et.al., Defendants.
Timothy M. Cain, United States District Judge.
Michael E. Wolfe, proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On March 13,
2019, Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, issued a Report
and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that
Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction (ECF Nos.
184 and 218) be denied. (ECF No. 240). Plaintiff was
advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF
No. 240-1). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. (ECF
Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to
make a final determination in this matter remains with this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983). Rather, “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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to
the Report results in a party's waiver of the right to
appeal the district court's judgment based upon that
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins,
766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
court notes that Plaintiff's objections were not timely
filed. Plaintiff's objections were due April 22, 2019.
(ECF No. 240). Plaintiff's objections are dated April
17, 2019, (ECF No. 271 at 2), but Plaintiff himself
acknowledges that the objections were delayed because the
prison law library was not “punctual, ”
id. at 1. Moreover, the prison mailroom stamp shows
the objections as having been received by the prison mailroom
on April 24, 2019. (ECF No. 271-1 at 1). While Plaintiff
dated the objections April 17th, he did not certify under the
penalty of perjury that he placed his objections in the mail
on that date. See United States v. Palacios, 724
Fed. App'x 248 (4th Cir. 2018) (“Both a
litigant's certification and evidence such as a date
stamp may be used to determine the timeliness of a
prisoner's notice of appeal.”). Accordingly, the
court finds the objections untimely. However, even if the
court were to find Plaintiff's objections timely, the
court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff's
motions for preliminary injunction should be
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No.
240) and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
motions for Preliminary Injunction (ECF Nos. 184 and 218) are
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 \ of the Federal Rules of Appellate
This case was reassigned to the
undersigned on March 7, 2019. (ECF No. 201).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., all pre-trial
proceedings were referred to a magistrate judge.
The court notes that, in his
objections, Plaintiff requests copies of certain documents.
(ECF No. 271 at 3). The Clerk of Court will handle those
Plaintiff's objections were due by
April 18, 2019. (ECF No. 240). Because Plaintiff was served
the Report by mail, he had an additional three days to file
objections or until April 21, 2019. Id. As April
21st was a Sunday, ...