Opinion
Civil Action 3:24-4898-MGL
10-02-2024
JANET NELUMS, also known as Janet Louise Nelums, and CHRIS NELUMS, Plaintiffs, v. BEN MILL, JR., special referee, an individual; JUDGE HON KRISTI F. CURTIS, an individual; SCOTT AND CORLEY P.A.; NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP; MATTHEW A. ABEE, an individual; BLACK KNIGHT/ LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, LPS; RICHLAND COUNTY, SHERIFF LEON LOTT, in his official capacity as The Sheriff of The Richland County Sheriffs Department; CIVIL PROCESS DIVISION, SGT KYLE KOVALCHUK; REGINALD P. CORLEY, an individual; and MADISON C. GUYTON, an individual, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs Janet Nelums, also known as Janet Louise Nelums, and Chris Nelums (collectively, the Nelums), who are representing themselves, brought this action against the abovenamed Defendants, alleging violations of their civil rights in a state foreclosure action.
This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court deny the Nelums's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. 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 September 9, 2024. To date, the parties have failed to file any 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). 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 under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court the Nelums's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.