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 Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 65. 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 his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff contends that his living conditions at Lee Correctional Institution amount to cruel and unusual punishment. ECF No. 65 at 1. Plaintiff also alleges he is not being afforded adequate medical care. Id. at 3,5. Plaintiff also claims officers failed to do regular, routine rounds to ensure the safety of the mental health inmates. Id. at 6. Plaintiff asks the court to "intervene to secure actual evidence to take judicial notice of his living conditions." Id. at 7. Plaintiff also asks that pictures be taken to show the conditions of the cells. Id. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion arguing he has not demonstrated entitlement to an injunction. ECF No. 71.
"[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). "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).
An analysis of the Winter factors reveals that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied. First, Plaintiff has not made a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his Complaint. Second, Plaintiff does not make any specific factual allegations that he is currently threatened with imminent injury, loss, or damage, nor has he shown that the balance of equities is in his favor. Finally, Plaintiff has not shown that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 65, be denied.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. September 25, 2019
Florence, South Carolina
/s/
Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge