Opinion
Civil Action 1:24-cv-439-BHH
06-28-2024
John Singletary, Plaintiff, v. Aiken County Code Enforcement Division; Rodney Cooper; Page Bayne; Bradley Weimer; Chad Alexander; and Joel Duke, Defendants.
ORDER
BRUCE H. HENDRICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”), which was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., and wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's two pro se motions “for expedited emergency hearing and request for injunction.” (See ECF Nos. 11, 12, and 15.) Attached to the Magistrate Judge's Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of his right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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.'”) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Accordingly, the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge's Report and denies Plaintiff's motions for the specific reasons set forth by the Magistrate Judge.
It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 15) is adopted and incorporated herein, and Plaintiff's emergency motions for expedited hearing and request for injunction (ECF Nos. 11, 12) are denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.