From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McNair v. Ozmint

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
May 20, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-3470-HFF-JRM (D.S.C. May. 20, 2008)

Summary

denying a motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve cassette tapes because there already existed a duty to preserve material evidence

Summary of this case from Moore v. Corpening

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-3470-HFF-JRM.

May 20, 2008


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 motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctive relief (Docs. 8, 9, and 29) be denied, Plaintiff's motion for a non-suit without prejudice (Doc. 43) be denied, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) be granted. 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 April 29, 2008, 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 motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctive relief (Docs. 8, 9, and 29) be DENIED, Plaintiff's motion for a non-suit without prejudice (Doc. 43) be DENIED, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 37) be GRANTED.

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

McNair v. Ozmint

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
May 20, 2008
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-3470-HFF-JRM (D.S.C. May. 20, 2008)

denying a motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve cassette tapes because there already existed a duty to preserve material evidence

Summary of this case from Moore v. Corpening

denying a motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve cassette tapes because there already existed a duty to preserve material evidence

Summary of this case from Todd v. White

denying a motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve cassette tapes because there already existed a duty to preserve material evidence

Summary of this case from Sparks v. Henderson Cnty. Sheriffs Office

denying a motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve cassette tapes because there already existed a duty to preserve material evidence

Summary of this case from Harper v. Lemon

denying a motion for a temporary restraining order to preserve cassette tapes because there already existed a duty to preserve material evidence

Summary of this case from Ross v. Conner
Case details for

McNair v. Ozmint

Case Details

Full title:WALTER COLE McNAIR, JR., Plaintiff, v. JON OZMINT et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division

Date published: May 20, 2008

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-3470-HFF-JRM (D.S.C. May. 20, 2008)

Citing Cases

Todd v. White

Here, if Defendants destroy any exculpatory evidence they will be subject to sanctions. However, because they…

Sparks v. Henderson Cnty. Sheriffs Office

Here, if Defendants destroy any exculpatory evidence they will be subject to sanctions. However, because they…