Teresa Hill, individually and as agent of Hill and Hill Attorney v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al.

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-05297
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Teresa Hill, individually and as agent of Case No. 2:25-cv-5297-RMG Hill and Hill Attorney,

Plaintiff, v. ORDER

Verizon Communications, Inc. et al., Defendants.

Before the Court is the report and recommendation (R&R) of the Magistrate Judge recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 71) be denied. (Dkt. No. 90). Plaintiff was advised that she had 14 days to file objections to the R & R and a failure to timely file objections would result in clear error review and a waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff did not file objections to the R & R. I. Background Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a motion for a temporary injunction against Berkeley Electric Cooperative and McThomas Engineering, neither of which are named defendants in this action. Plaintiff alleges these nonparties are responsible for malicious malware. The Magistrate Judge recommended the denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 90). II. Legal Standard The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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 1 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 Report 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). III. Discussion The Magistrate Judge has ably addressed the factual legal issues in this matter and correctly concluded that Plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction against the two non-party entities. IV. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, the Court ADOPTS the R&R as the Order of the Court (Dkt. No. 90) and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 71). AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_s/Richard M. Gergel_ Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge

October 15, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina