Opinion
C/A No.: 5:19-1539-RMG-KDW
09-25-2019
Vincent Brown, Plaintiff, v. Lt. Oscar Levels; Sgt. McColough; Asst. Dental A. Ridgeway; Mr. McClurry; Associate Senior Warden Kendall; Captain Loyd; C/O Friarson; C/O Carmen Jackson; Captain McCullough; Mental Health Tech Rosa Privitt; Mental Health Tech Mojo; and Mental Health Ms. Fox; Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Vincent Brown ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action alleging violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 34. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review pretrial matters in cases involving pro se litigants and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
In support of his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiff summarizes the factual contentions in the complaint that he has currently pending with this court. ECF No. 34 at 1-3. Plaintiff also offers his own affidavit in which he avers that since April 9, 2019, Lt. Levels, Sergeant McColough, Assistant Dentist Ridgeway, and C.O. Officer McClurry have retaliated against him. ECF No. 34-1 at 1. Plaintiff also attests that: (a) he has not been given shower time three times a week, (b) he is eating cold food, (c) he is not being permitted to go to the law library, and (d) he is denied outside recreation, mental health and medical services, and cleaning supplies. Id. Plaintiff requests the following relief:
Sergeant McColough and Officer McClurry have not been served with the Complaint. --------
(1) Termination or resignation of Lieutenant Levels from SCDC, (2) Temporary restrain the named defendants Sgt. McColough, Lieutenant Levels, and C.O. McClurry at least 90 to 120 days and (3) Court order the Plaintiff to be mentally screen diagnosis.ECF No. 34 at 3.
"[P]reliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies involving the exercise of very far-reaching power to be granted only sparingly and in limited circumstances." MicroStrategy Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335, 339 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A plaintiff does not have an automatic right to a preliminary injunction, and such relief should be used sparingly. The primary purpose of injunctive relief is to preserve the status quo pending a resolution on the merits. Injunctive relief which changes the status quo pending trial is limited to cases where "the exigencies of the situation demand such relief." Wetzel v. Edwards, 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980).
The undersigned finds Plaintiff's Motion for a TRO must fail and recommends denying his motion. Although Plaintiff does discuss the factors Winter requires that he prove, Plaintiff's conclusory allegations are insufficient evidence to establish that he met any of these factors. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for TRO, ECF No. 34, be denied.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. September 25, 2019
Florence, South Carolina
/s/
Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge