From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scott v. Padula

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Jan 26, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:08-3240-HFF-PJG (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 2010)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:08-3240-HFF-PJG.

January 26, 2010


ORDER


This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and motion to appropriate funds (Docket Entries 71 80) be denied. The Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on January 8, 2010, but Plaintiff failed to file any objections to the Report. In the absence of such objections, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and motion to appropriate funds (Docket Entries 71 80) are hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within thirty (30) days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Scott v. Padula

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Jan 26, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:08-3240-HFF-PJG (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 2010)
Case details for

Scott v. Padula

Case Details

Full title:JAMES DARNELL SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY PADULA, Lee CI Warden, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division

Date published: Jan 26, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0:08-3240-HFF-PJG (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 2010)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Gelsinger

Decisions by correctional staff considering inmate complaints without more does not establish personal…

Stepney v. Armstead

Where, as here, Stepney points to no action or inaction on the part of Warden Armstead that resulted in a…