IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT DIVISION

Larry A. White, ) Case No. 9:24-cv-03715-JDA-MHC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Bryan P. Stirling, Director of SCDC; ) Dennis Patterson, Assistant Deputy ) Director of SCDC; Daniel Harouff, ) Deputy Warden at Perry Correctional ) Institution; Curtis Earley, Warden at ) Perry Correctional Institution; David ) Burzenski, Lieutenant at Perry ) Correctional Institution; Ms. Williams, ) Classification Caseworker at Perry ) Correctional Institution; Brent ) Blakeley, Captain at Perry ) Correctional Institution; Giddel ) Salazar, Lieutenant at Perry ) Correctional Institution; SCDC, ) ) Defendants. )

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. [Doc. 45.] In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry for pre-trial proceedings. On February 20, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be denied. [Doc. 49.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 7.] No party has filed objections, and the time to do so has lapsed. 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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part.

(b)(1). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(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” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report

of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction [Doc. 45] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge March 25, 2025 Charleston, 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.