United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
James R. Rose, Plaintiff,
South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendant.
BRYAN HARWELL CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff
James Rose's objections to the Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Paige J. Gossett, who recommends denying Plaintiff's
“Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order.” See ECF Nos. 38 & 45.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's 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 must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (“Defendant”) is
interfering with the practice of his Rastafarian religion. He
has filed a “Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order” (“TRO”) seeking to restrain
Defendant from cutting or shaving his hair. See ECF
No. 29. Defendant, which previously appeared in this action,
has filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion.
See ECF No. 31. The Magistrate Judge-treating the
motion as one seeking a preliminary injunction rather than a
TRO-recommends denying Plaintiff's motion because he
fails to satisfy the Winter criteria for the issuance of
a preliminary injunction. R & R at pp. 1-4.
sole objection is that the Magistrate Judge erred by treating
his motion as one for a preliminary injunction under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a); he asserts the
Magistrate Judge should have treated it as one for a TRO
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b). See ECF
No. 45. However, because Defendant received notice of
Plaintiff's motion and had an opportunity to respond,
Magistrate Judge properly treated the motion as one for a
preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Tobaccoville
USA, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, No.
4:16-cv-00424-RBH, 2016 WL 892661, at *3 n.10 (D.S.C. Mar. 9,
2016) (treating the plaintiff's TRO motion as one for a
preliminary injunction because the defendant had received
notice and an opportunity to respond); Mickell v.
Reynolds, No. 6:15-cv-04656-RBH, 2016 WL 3049358, at *2
n.3 (D.S.C. May 31, 2016) (same); Reliable Prop. Servs.,
LLC v. Capital Growth Partners, LLC, 1 F.Supp.3d 961,
962 n.2 (D. Minn. 2014) (same).
event, the four Winter criteria apply equally to
both TRO and preliminary injunction motions, see Patel v.
Moron, 897 F.Supp.2d 389, 395 (E.D. N.C. 2012), and the
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has
failed to “establish  that he is likely to succeed
on the merits,  that he is likely to suffer irreparable
harm in the absence of preliminary relief,  that the
balance of equities tips in his favor, and  that an
injunction is in the public interest.” Winter,
555 U.S. at 20. Accordingly, the Court will overrule
Plaintiff's objection and adopt the R & R.
foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge's R & R [ECF No. 38] and
DENIES Plaintiff's motion [ECF No. 29].
IS SO ORDERED.