United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Darrell L. Goss, Plaintiff,
Bryan P. Stirling; Warden Cothran; Associate Warden J. Dean; G. Leaman, Associate Warden; Major R. Chvala; Captain L. Pack; Captain Staggers; Lieutenant Larry; Warden John R. Pate; Virginia Grubbs, Postal Director; D. Phillips, Assistant Postal Director and Cindy Beer, U.S. Postal Director Defendants.
GORDON BANKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
& Recommendation Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing
pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order or in the Alternative,
Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. No. 37.) Pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 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 for consideration. For the
reasons stated herein, this Court recommends that
Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or
in the Alternative, Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 37) be
Motion seeks a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) against Defendant Bryan P. Stirling
(“Stirling”) “from violating his 1st
Amendment constitutional right to access the courts and/or in
the alternative, a preliminary injunction directing
[Stirling] to permit [Plaintiff] to gain possession of his
legal materials and to access the law library.” (Dkt.
No. 37 at 4.)
preliminary injunction “protect[s] the status quo . . .
to prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of a lawsuit
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) (abrogated on other grounds by eBay, Inc. v.
MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006)). A
preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy
never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). To obtain a
TRO or preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show the
(1) That she is likely to succeed on the merits,
(2) that she is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief,
(3) that the balance of equities tips in her favor, and
(4) that an injunction is in the public interest.
Id. at 20.
review, the Court finds 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, 116 S.Ct.
2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (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 access to the courts. He has not
indicated that he has missed a filing deadline or failed to
present a claim as a result of any act of Defendants. 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
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 Plaintiffs favor. Finally,
Plaintiff has not shown that an injunction would be in the
foregoing reasons, this Court recommends that Plaintiffs
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or in the
Alternative, Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 37) be
IS SO RECOMMENDED.
of Right to File Objections to Report and
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 ...