Opinion
Civil Action 2:23-01169-RMG-MGB
04-22-2024
Robbie Collins, Plaintiff, v. Lt. Taylor, et. al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARY GORDON BAKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 24, 2023, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges he was attacked after being called a snitch by Defendant Lt. Taylor, and that Lt. Taylor, along with Defendants Warden Palmer and Associate Warden Robinson, failed to protect Plaintiff from a substantial risk of serious harm. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges these events occurred while he was housed at McCormick Correctional Institution. (Id.) This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.(Dkt. No. 81.) The Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for the Court's review. (Dkt. Nos. 94; 97.) For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's motion be denied.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., all pretrial matters in cases involving pro se litigants are referred to a United States Magistrate Judge.
STANDARD
“The substantive standard for granting either a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction is the same.” Dyke v. Staphen, No. 6:18-cv-402-TMC-KFM, 2018 WL 2144551, at *1 (D.S.C. Apr. 19, 2018), adopted by, 2018 WL 2136062 (D.S.C. May 9, 2018); see also Virginia v. Kelly, 29 F.3d 145, 147 (4th Cir. 1994) (showing that the standard for a temporary restraining order is the same as that applied to motions for preliminary injunction). To obtain a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, a party must make a “clear showing” that (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, 21 (2008); see also, Smith v Ozmint, 444 F.Supp.2d 502, 504 (D.S.C. 2006). All four requirements must be satisfied in order for relief to be granted. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089 (2010).
Because Plaintiff is representing himself, this standard must be applied while liberally construing his filings in this case. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
DISCUSSION
In his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiff states that “SCDC has initiated a campaign of retaliation against Plaintiff” by denying him legal materials and medical attention. (Dkt. No. 81 at 1-2.) Specific to the legal materials, Plaintiff complains that he is entitled to more than the monthly 20 sheets of paper and 5 envelopes he currently receives. (Id. at 1.) As for his medical issues, Plaintiff states that he is “defecating blood and medical refuses to see [him].” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff asks that the Court compel SCDC medical staff to give him a “colonoscopy, endoscopy, biopsy, left foot surgery” and that he be seen for his shoulder pain and his pain when he inhales. (Id.) Plaintiff also asks that the Court compel SCDC to order Plaintiff shoes due to a previous surgery on his right foot. (Id.) While not expressly stated by Plaintiff, it appears that the events complained of occurred after Plaintiff's transfer to Lee Correctional Institution (“Lee”) on September 28, 2023.
See https://public.doc.state.sc.us/scdc-public/inmateDetails.do?id=%2000290946 (last visited April 17, 2024); see also Charley v. Moore, No. 6:14-cv-4591-BHH-KFM, 2015 WL 13734221, at *2 (D.S.C. Jan. 28, 2015) (“This court may take judicial notice of the SCDC public inmate database.”).
Defendants deny any retaliation and have submitted an affidavit from an Associate Warden at Lee, Edward Tisdale, who avers that he is familiar with Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 94; 94-1.) Tisdale avers that he spoke with Plaintiff about “whether he received all the legal materials he needed,” and Plaintiff told Tisdale “that he was getting everything that he needs in a timely manner.” (Dkt. No. 94-1 at 1.) In support, Tisdale has submitted forms showing that, in January and February of 2024, Plaintiff received “five envelopes, twenty sheets of paper, and two large envelopes.” (Id.; Dkt. No. 94-2.) Tisdale avers that he “would be the person to determine whether additional materials are merited” for an inmate in the Restricted Housing Unit, such as Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 94-1 at 1.) Tisdale further avers, “When I spoke with Inmate Collins about legal materials he was on his way to medical and said he had a stomach issue. He had complained to me earlier in the day and I made sure that he was seen by medical.” (Id. at 2.) According to Tisdale, Plaintiff did not advise him “of any other medical needs that were not being addressed.” (Id.) Tisdale avers that Plaintiff “can submit a request to be seen by medical.” (Id.)
In addition to Tisdale' affidavit testimony, Defendants have submitted Plaintiff's medical records dating from January 10, 2024 through February 22, 2024. (Dkt. No. 103-1.) Given that Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on February 8, 2024, these are the records most relevant to his allegations about his lack of sufficient medical treatment. These records show that Plaintiff was seen by medical staff or a mental health professional on a regular basis throughout January and February of 2024. During a visit with the psychiatric clinic on January 25, 2024, Plaintiff complained of “experiencing dark bloody stool over the past few months,” and he was transported to medical after he began “sweating profusely and complain[ed] of feeling lightheaded.” (Id. at 10-13.) Records from a February 8, 2024 “sick call visit” state that an appointment was made for Plaintiff to go to the Ear Nose and Throat specialist in February and for an “EGD”in March. (Id. at 6-7.)
An EGD is an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. See Upper GI Endoscopy, John Hopkins Medicine, https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/upper-gi-endoscopy (last visited April 17, 2024).
Upon careful review, there is no basis to grant Plaintiff's motion. As an initial matter, there is no evidence Plaintiff's claims of retaliation at Lee are related to his Eighth Amendment claims arising from events at McCormick Correctional Institution. Accordingly, his motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied as unrelated to the issues in the suit. (See Dkt. No. 29 at 3 (denying Plaintiff's Motion for TRO because “when a party moves for a temporary restraining order on issue outside of the suit, the underlying purpose of the temporary restraining order is absent”).
Even assuming that the basis of the suit and the temporary restraining order were the same, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff has failed to make the required showing under Winter. First, Plaintiff has failed to show that he will succeed on the merits. “To prevail on a claim of denial of access to the court, prisoners must demonstrate actual injury.” Long v. Vaughan, 652 Fed.Appx. 176, 178 (4th Cir. 2016) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-51 (1996)). “Thus, a prisoner must show that the prison policies “‘hindered his effort to pursue a legal claim.'” Id. (quoting Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351). Here, Plaintiff has not offered any evidence of actual injury resulting from his alleged denial of legal materials. (See Dkt. Nos. 81; 97.) There is no evidence that Plaintiff has failed to present a claim as a result of any act of Defendants. To the extent any briefings filed by Plaintiff in this case have been untimely, the record shows he has not been prejudiced by the delay. Without any evidence that Plaintiff's efforts to pursue a legal claim have been “hindered,” it is unlikely Plaintiff will succeed on the merits of his First Amendment claim. See Rountree v. Robinson, No. 7:18-cv-00318, 2020 WL 2475878, at *6 (W.D. Va. May 13, 2020) (“[T]his right of access [to the courts] does not require prisons to provide an inmate litigant with physical access to a law library or to provide her with whatever type of legal material or equipment that she believes to be necessary to her litigation efforts.”).
Further, Plaintiff's allegations about improper medical care fail to establish deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. To establish deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, Plaintiff must demonstrate that Defendants actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm to his person. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). “Deliberate indifference is a very high standard-a showing of mere negligence will not meet it.” Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1999) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). Here, Plaintiff offers only unverified allegations about his need for certain medical procedures and treatment for his shoulder pain, and his medical need for shoes. Given the medical record discussed above, Plaintiff's allegations fail to indicate a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 849 (4th Cir. 1985) (holding that “[d]isagreements between an inmate and a physician over the inmate's proper medical care” are not sufficient to raise an Eighth Amendment claim pursuant to § 1983).
In sum, the undersigned cannot find Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of any constitutional claims arising from Plaintiff's allegations about his lack of legal materials and improper medical care where the record contains no compelling evidence on these issues. Because there is no evidence of actual injury or even the likelihood of actual injury, Plaintiff has likewise failed to show that he will suffer any irreparable harm. In addition, the balance of the equities does not tip in Plaintiff's favor. Finally, Plaintiff has not shown that an injunction would be in the public interest.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. No. 81) be DENIED.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
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
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
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).