United States District Court, D. South Carolina
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
GEIGER LEWIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case was filed as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(section 1983). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter is
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge suggesting the
Court deny Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief and
Plaintiff's motion for protective order. The Report was
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil
Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976).
The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report to which specific objection is
made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or
recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §
document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally
construed.'” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.
97, 106 (1976)). Courts are not, however, required to
“conjure up questions never squarely presented to
them” or seek out arguments for a party. Beaudett
v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
Magistrate Judge filed the Report on October 12, 2018, ECF
No. 67, and the Clerk of Court entered Plaintiff's
objections to the Report on October 19, 2018, ECF No. 69. The
Court has reviewed the objections, but holds them to be
without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
first objects the Magistrate Judge erred in suggesting
Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief seeks the same
relief as Plaintiff's second amended complaint under
section 1983. As a preliminary matter, though the Report
recounts the relief Plaintiff seeks in both his second
amended complaint and his motion for injunctive relief, the
Magistrate Judge nowhere indicates the relief sought in the
complaint is the same as that sought in Plaintiff's
motion for injunctive relief. Further, as analyzed below,
Plaintiff has failed to show he is entitled to injunctive
relief at this juncture. For those reasons, the Court will
overrule Plaintiff's first objection.
next objects the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending
Plaintiff fails to meet the requirements for a preliminary
injunction. Plaintiff argues he has met all elements
necessary for the Court to issue a preliminary injunction.
The Court disagrees.
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). For a preliminary
injunction to issue, the plaintiff must show: 1) likelihood
of success on the merits; 2) likelihood of irreparable harm
if the injunction is not issued; 3) the equities weigh in
favor of issuing the injunction; and 4) the injunction is in
the public interest. Id. at 20.
Magistrate Judge suggested Plaintiff fails to meet any of the
Winter factors required for a preliminary injunction
to issue. Plaintiff counters he has shown Defendants are
guilty, thus meeting the first factor. He further advances he
has shown the equities favor an injunction, and such an
injunction would be in the public interest. Having reviewed
the record, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff has failed to meet any of the Winter
elements required for the Court to issue a preliminary
injunction. For that reason, the Court will overrule
Plaintiff's second objection to the Report.
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case
pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court overrules
Plaintiff's objections, adopts the Report, and
incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of this
Court Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief is
DENIED and Plaintiff's motion for
protective order is DENIED.
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order
within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3