United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Spartanburg Division
Richard Mark Gergel United States District Court Judge
the Court is the report and recommendation (“R &
R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 23) recommending
that Plaintiff's “motion for preliminary
injunction” (Dkt. No. 11) be denied. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court adopts the R & R as the order
of the Court and denies Plaintiff's “motion for
Willie Joe Sturkey is a pro se litigant detained at the Union
County Jail in South Carolina. In June 2018, Plaintiff
brought a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claiming that jail officials and prosecutors in his pending
state prosecution violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Dkt. No. 1.) In July 2018,
Plaintiff filed an “Order Injunctive Relief”
requesting “an Order of Relief prohibiting the
defendant to discontinue obstructing my due process and equal
protection rights.” (Dkt. No. 11 at 2.)
Review of R & R
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight and the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. See, e.g., Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may “accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where a petitioner has not
objected to the R & R, the Court reviews the R & R to
“only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on
the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory
committee's note. In the absence of objections to the R
& R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting
the Magistrate Judge's analysis and recommendation.
See, e.g., Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,
199 (4th Cir. 1983) (“In the absence of objection . . .
we do not believe that it requires any explanation.”).
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
seeking a preliminary injunction must make a “clear
showing” that (1) he is likely to succeed on the
merits, (2) he is likely to suffer imminent and irreparable
harm absent preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities
tip in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public
interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20-22 (2008); see also Metro. Reg'l Info.
Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 722 F.3d
591, 595 (4th Cir. 2013). This is because interim relief is
“an extraordinary remedy involving the exercise of a
very far-reaching power, which is to be applied only in the
limited circumstances which clearly demand it.”
Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952
F.2d 802, 811 (4th Cir. 1991) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted). Because there is a
“fundamental policy against federal interference with
state criminal prosecutions, ” Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971), the Court will grant a
preliminary injunction that may interfere with state criminal
proceedings only where “extraordinary
circumstances” present the possibility of irreparable
harm. Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975).
The “cost, anxiety and inconvenience” of
defending a state prosecution do not alone constitute
irreparable injury. Id.
Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably addressed the
issues raised by Plaintiff and correctly concluded that the
motion for preliminary injunction should be denied. First,
the Magistrate Judge was correct to identify Plaintiff's
filing as a motion for a preliminary injunction. The
Magistrate Judge also accurately determined that, liberally
construing this pro se litigant's motion, Plaintiff does
not demonstrate that a preliminary injunction is warranted.
Plaintiff's ten complaints concerning the state court
proceeding and detention center do not make a “clear
showing” of his likelihood of success on the merits or
imminent and irreparable harm, nor that the equities balance
in his favor or that an injunction is in the public's
interest. Likewise, Plaintiff's motion does not suggest
extraordinary circumstances of possible harm that would
warrant this Court's issuance of an injunction that may
affect Plaintiff's pending state court prosecution.
foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R
& R as the order of the Court (Dkt. No. 23) and
DENIES Plaintiff's “motion for
preliminary injunction” (Dkt. No. 11).