Opinion
1:15CV947
06-22-2016
CHARLES EDWARD TURNER, JR., Plaintiff, v. MR. CLELLAND, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed with the court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and, on March 16, 2016 was served on the parties in this action. Plaintiff objected to the Recommendation. (Doc. 25.)
To the extent it could be claimed that further evidence has been offered in the objection, the court in its discretion declines to consider it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Doe v. Chao, 306 F.3d 170, 183 & n.9 (4th Cir. 2002) (district court's decision whether to consider additional evidence is committed to its sound discretion), aff'd, 540 U.S. 614 (2004). Attempts to introduce new evidence after the magistrate judge has acted are disfavored. E.g., Virgin Enters. Ltd. v. Virgin Cuts, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 2d 220, 223 (E.D. Va. 2000); Callas v. Trane CAC, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 1117 (W.D. Va. 1990), aff'd, 940 F.2d 651 (4th Cir. 1991). --------
The court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objection was made and has made a de novo determination in accord with the Magistrate Judge's report. The court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Request for Temporary Injunction (Doc. 4) is DENIED.
/s/ Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge June 22, 2016