Opinion
C/A No.: 1:18-3506-MGL-SVH
02-08-2019
Richard E. Boggs, Petitioner, v. United States; Peter Rae and Coworkers, et. al. as individuals; and Internal Revenue Service, Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the court on Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). [ECF No. 21]. Pursuant to Rule 65(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., the court may issue a TRO without notice to the opposing party where "specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint show that immediate or irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). In addition, the moving party must certify in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required. Id. The purpose of a TRO is to avoid possible irreparable injury to a party pending litigation.
Plaintiff's motion for a TRO also requests a preliminary injunction. [ECF No. 21]. In addition, he has filed a motion to quash. [ECF No. 22]. As a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to quash are motions requiring notice to the opposing party, these motions will be ruled upon after Respondents have had an opportunity to be heard on the motions.
Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Specifically, Petitioner failed to (1) submit an affidavit or verified complaint showing irreparable harm will result before Respondents can be heard in opposition or (2) certify in writing efforts to provide Respondents notice or provide reasons why notice should not be required. Therefore, the undersigned recommends Petitioner's motion for a TRO be denied.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. February 8, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina
/s/
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached
"Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation."
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n 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.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).