Opinion
C.A. No. 6:19-1006-DCC-KFM
07-25-2019
Trey Alexander Williams, Plaintiff, v. Captain McNut, Lt. Clark, Broad River Correctional, Lieber Correctional, Ms. Berch, Ms. Ford, SLED, McCormick Correctional, Defendants.
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and/or alternatively, a temporary restraining order ("TRO") (doc. 31). The plaintiff is a state prisoner in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC") located in McCormick Correctional Institution. 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 5, 2019 (doc. 1). Since that time, despite numerous extensions, the plaintiff has not complied with the court's orders to provide full documentation to bring his case into proper form for judicial screening (docs. 7; 13; 17; 23). On July 22, the plaintiff filed a motion to close his case (so that he can exhaust his administrative remedies) and a motion for a preliminary injunction and/or TRO (docs. 31; 33). In his motion, the plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction and/or TRO with respect to claims he asserts are brought in his complaint (doc. 31). In his complaint, the plaintiff asserts various violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights (doc. 1).
A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction or 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).
The plaintiff has failed to meet the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction or a TRO. At this stage of the proceedings—where the plaintiff also seeks to dismiss his case in order to exhaust his administrative remedies, he has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, and he has provided nothing to substantiate the allegations he makes in his complaint nor his current motion. For example, as part of his motion, the plaintiff seeks transfer to Kirkland Correctional Institution, the only institution he asserts is "safe" for him to be housed (doc. 31 at 3-6). There is no constitutional right, however, to be housed in a particular institution, at a particular custody level, or in a particular portion or unit of a correctional institution. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983); Chase v. Comm'r of Md. Dep't of Corr., 378 F. App'x 332 (4th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (per curiam). Accordingly, the plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief and his motion should be denied.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and/or TRO (doc. 31) should be denied.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
s/ Kevin F. McDonald
United States Magistrate Judge July 25, 2019
Greenville, South Carolina
The plaintiff's attention 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:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
300 East Washington Street, Room 239
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
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).