Mendez v. Glover

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Juan Mendez, ) Case No. 6:19-cv-00539-DCC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) ) C/O Cook and C/O Cleveland, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion to order Broad River Correctional Institution to let him go to the law library. ECF No. 45. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On September 9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report construing Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for preliminary injunction and recommending that it be denied. ECF No. 66. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report, and the time to do so has lapsed.1 The Court notes that this case is ongoing and that Plaintiff has continued to file other documents in this case. The Court has reviewed his motion for extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and his motion for copies at no expense. See ECF Nos. 71, 74. Neither motion can be construed as requesting additional time to file objections to the Report or as objections to the Report.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).

As stated above, Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report.

Accordingly, after considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s motion to order Broad River Correctional Institution to let him go to the law library [45] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge October 8, 2019 Spartanburg, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.