You're viewing Docket Item 62 from the case Nelson v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:

6:12-cv-02066-JFA-KFM Date Filed 06/04/13 Entry Number 62 Page 1 of 2


Jerry W. Nelson,



South Carolina Department of Corrections;
Wilson Simmons; and Charlie Turbide,



) C/A No. 6:12-2066-JFA-KFM

The pro se plaintiff, Jerry Nelson, brought an action against the defendants in state

court alleging various claims of sexual assault, failure to protect, and abuse. The defendants

removed the action to this court on July 23, 2012 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff has

filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO).

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and


Recommendation wherein he suggests that this court should deny the plaintiff’s motion for

a TRO. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,

and the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.

The parties were advised of their right to file objections to the Report and

Recommendation. The court has conducted the required de novo review and finds the

plaintiff’s objections are without merit and are thus overruled.

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this 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 of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation 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 to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).


6:12-cv-02066-JFA-KFM Date Filed 06/04/13 Entry Number 62 Page 2 of 2

The Magistrate Judge has reviewed the plaintiff’s motion for a TRO under the

appropriate standards of law and opines that the plaintiff has failed to show that he is clearly

entitled to the relief sought. This court has also carefully reviewed the record, the applicable

law, the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, and finds the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendation to be proper and incorporates the Report herein by reference.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 44) is

denied. The Clerk is directed to return this file to the Magistrate Judge for further review of

the defendants’ motion to dismiss and to stay discovery.


June 4, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge