Opinion
Case No. 2:19-cv-1270-DCC-MGB
05-31-2019
Manuel A. Marin, Plaintiff, v. Randall Williams, Lieutenant Grant, Major Clark, Unknown R.H.U. Unit Manager / Captain, and Q.M.H.P. Ms. Birch, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Manuel Marin, a pro se state prisoner, seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has a filed a one-sentence motion asking the Court to issue a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 14.) Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), all pretrial matters in this case are referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. The undersigned recommends that Marin's motion be denied.
Plaintiff is suing several prison officials for allegedly being deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, failing to protect him from an attempted attack by other inmates, and subjecting him to prison conditions that violate the Eighth Amendment. (See generally Dkt. No. 15.) Plaintiff asks that the Court
enjoin[] the defendants, their successors in office, agents and employees and all other persons acting in concert and participation with them, and the South Carolina Department of Corrections in general from: (1) forcing petitioner into general population; (2) from double celling; (3) and from forcing petitioner into the Adjustment Unit; (4) and to place petitioner into State Wide Protective Custody.(Dkt. No. 14.) That is the entirety of Plaintiff's motion.
Any type of preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy" that courts "never award[] as of right." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show the following:
(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. Id. at 20; see also Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 230 (4th Cir. 2017) (stating the moving party must "clearly establish[]" entitlement to the preliminary relief he wants); Moore v. Kempthorne, 464 F. Supp. 2d 519, 525 (E.D. Va. 2006) ("The standard for granting either a TRO or a preliminary injunction is the same."). Plaintiff's conclusory request does not satisfy any of these requirements. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. May 31, 2019
Charleston, South Carolina
/s/_________
MARY GORDON BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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).