Opinion
C. A. 6:22-cv-01320-DCC-KFM
06-24-2022
Demetrius Glenn, Plaintiff, v. Adam Sinclair Ruffin, Michael Henthorne, Ms. Williams, Ms. Megitt, Ms. Barber, Jane Doe Caseworker, Defendants.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Kevin F. McDonald United States Magistrate Judge
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) (doc. 17). The plaintiff, a state prisoner in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), is located at Broad River Correctional Institution (“Broad River”). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
The plaintiff's complaint was entered on the docket on April 25, 2022 (doc. 2). On June 23, 2022, the plaintiff filed a motion for a TRO (doc. 17). As addressed below, the undersigned recommends it be denied.
In his motion for a TRO, the plaintiff has repeated the allegations set forth in his complaint, indicating that he has been denied access to the business office, showers, fresh air, the law library, the mailroom, and the prison mailbox (doc. 17). The plaintiff alleges that he will suffer immediate harm if a TRO is not entered - referencing an exhibit he did not attach to his motion - but does not identify what that harm is (id. at 2). The plaintiff seeks an order from the court prohibiting the defendants from denying the plaintiff access to the business office, showers, fresh air, the law library, the mailroom, and the prison mailbox (id. at 2).
A plaintiff seeking a TRO must establish all four of the following elements: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds by 559 U.S. 1089 (2010), reinstated in relevant part on remand by 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010). A plaintiff must make a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 345-46. Similarly, he must make a clear showing that he is likely to be irreparably harmed absent injunctive relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20-23; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347. Only then may the court consider whether the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff's favor. See Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 346-47. Finally, the court must pay particular regard to the public consequences of employing the extraordinary relief of injunction. Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 24).
First, it is unclear what immediate harm the plaintiff asserts as supporting his requirement for a TRO - as his motion references an exhibit not submitted to the court (see doc. 17 at 2). Nevertheless, the plaintiff's request for a TRO fails because he has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. Indeed, the plaintiff has provided nothing to substantiate the allegations he makes in his complaint and his motion contains vague and conclusory allegations of violations of his rights, with no indication that he will be irreparably harmed absent injunctive relief. As such, the undersigned recommends denying the plaintiff's motion.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (doc. 17) should be denied.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The attention of the parties is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).