United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
Jacquelyn D. Austin, United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on a motion for preliminary
injunction. [Doc. 6.] Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C.,
this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial
matters in this case and to submit findings and
recommendations to the District Court.
filed a motion for preliminary injunction on September 13,
2016. [Doc. 6.] Defendants filed a response to
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on December
5, 2016. [Doc. 20.] Plaintiff filed a reply on that same day.
[Doc. 21.] Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is ripe for
is a low-income disabled mother of four and a resident of
Elmwood Circle Apartments, a federally-subsidized housing
complex owned and operated by Defendants. [Doc. 6-1 at 1.] By
letter dated July 14, 2016, Defendant South Carolina Regional
Housing Authority No. 1 (“SCRHA1”) advised
Plaintiff that her lease at Edgewood Circle Apartments was
being terminated effective August 31, 2016, because Plaintiff
had allowed an unauthorized person to live in her apartment
and she had caused disturbances for other residents.
[Id.] A grievance hearing was held on August 9,
2016. [Id.] By letter dated August 31, 2016,
Plaintiff was informed that she was required to vacate her
apartment by September 10, 2016. [Id.] Subsequently,
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair
Housing Amendments Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. [Doc.
1.] Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction requiring
Defendants to refrain from taking further action to terminate
her tenancy at Edgewood Circle Apartments during the pendency
of this action.
for a Preliminary Injunction
preliminary injunction “protect[s] the status quo . . .
to prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of a lawsuit
[and] ultimately to preserve the court's ability to
render a meaningful judgment on the merits.” In re
Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation, 333 F.3d 517, 525
(4th Cir. 2003). It is “an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Coucil, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 23 (2008) (citing Munaf v.
Green, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)). To obtain a
preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show four elements:
1) she is likely to succeed on the merits,
2) she will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary
injunction is not granted,
3) the balance of equities favors her, and 4) the injunction
is in the public interest.
Id. at 20; see also Real Truth About Obama, Inc.
v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 345-47 (4th
Cir. 2009) (explaining how the Winter standard for
preliminary injunctions is different from the standard
previously applied in the Fourth Circuit), judgment
vacated and remanded, 130 S.Ct. 2371 (2010), in
light of Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n,
130 S.Ct. 876 (2010).
Winter, the Supreme Court requires “that the
plaintiff make a clear showing that she will likely succeed
on the merits at trial.” Real Truth About
Obama, 575 F.3d at 346 (citing Winter, 555 U.S.
at 20). Moreover, the party seeking the injunction must make
a clear showing that it will likely suffer irreparable harm
without an injunction. Id. at 347 (citing
Winter, 555 U.S. at 20). Further, the Supreme Court
in Winter emphasized the public interest
requirement, requiring courts to pay “‘particular
regard for the public ...