United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
RICHARD MARK GERGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
the Court is the report and recommendation ("R &
R") of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 58) recommending
that Plaintiff Mark Lott's motion for a temporary
restraining order (Dkt. No. 47) be denied. For the reasons
set forth below, the Court adopts the R & R as the Order
of the Court and denies Plaintiffs motion.
filed this action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging that Defendant, as the Director of
Correct Care Recovery Solutions, failed to protect Plaintiff
while he was in custody. (Dkt. No. 11.) Plaintiff is
currently a civilly committed individual at Correct Care
Recovery Solutions, and he now moves for a temporary
restraining order ("TRO"). (Dkt. No. 47.) Plaintiff
seeks "an immediate injunction against co-resident
O'Brien Whitlock" being within 100 feet of him.
(Id.) Plaintiff states he is scared to be near Mr.
Whitlock because Mr. Whitlock hit and stabbed him with a pen
when Plaintiff joined in a fight between Mr. Whitlock and
Joey Ginn in an attempt to protect Mr. Ginn. (Id.;
Dkt. No. 11 at 5-6.) On February 22, 2019, the Magistrate
Judge issued an R & R recommending that the Plaintiffs
motion for a TRO be denied. (Dkt. No. 58.) Plaintiff has not
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court
that has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a
final determination remains with the Court. See 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). This Court must make
a de novo determination of those portions of the R
& R Plaintiff specifically objects. Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2). Where Plaintiff fails to file any specific
objections, "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
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.
2005) (internal quotation omitted). "Moreover, in the
absence of specific objections to the R & R, the Court
need not give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation." Wilson v. S.C. Dept of Corr.,
No. 9:14-CV-4365-RMG, 2015 WL 1124701, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 12,
2015). See also Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200
(4th Cir. 1983). Plaintiff did not file objections in this
case, and the R & R is therefore reviewed for clear
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'I Info. Sys., Inc.
v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 722 F.3d 591, 595 (4th
Cir. 2013). This showing is required because such 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).
Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, the Plaintiffs motion
should be denied. Plaintiffs motion is appropriately
construed as seeking a preliminary injunction rather than a
temporary restraining order as Plaintiff failed to adhere to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding TROs. Under
the Winter framework, Plaintiff has not demonstrated
that he will suffer irreparable harm. Plaintiffs allegation
that Mr. Whitlock may "end up being around [him] at some
time or another" is merely speculative and fails to show
any actual harm. Further, Defendant's statement that he
has already taken steps to reduce the possibility of contact
further supports the Magistrate Judge's determination
that Plaintiff failed to show irreparable harm. (Dkt.No. 50
foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R
& R as the Order of the Court (Dkt. No. 58) and
DENIES Plaintiffs motion for a temporary
restraining order (Dkt. No. 47).