Patterson v. Stirling

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Michael Patterson, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-3183-BHH v. ) ) ORDER ) Bryan Stirling, Charles Williams, ) John Palmer, and Amy Enloe, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________) This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), and wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s pro se motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 43.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of his right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The 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). Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the

applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and analysis. Accordingly, the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge’s Report and denies Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 43) is adopted and specifically incorporated herein, and Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (ECF No. 26) is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge February 7, 2023 Charleston, South Carolina