United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge.
October 30, 2018, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,
brought this action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (ECF No. 1). On February 28, 2019, Plaintiff
filed a “Motion for Emergency Injunction” seeking
a transfer from Turbeville Correctional Institution, where
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, to a different
correctional institution for him to use the law library. (ECF
No. 37 at 1, 4). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., this
matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial
handling. This matter is now before the court on the
magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation
(“Report”) recommending that the court deny
Plaintiff's motion. (ECF No. 80).
alleges that from December 2017 until April 2018, Turbeville
officials denied him access to the law library in retaliation
for Plaintiff's complaints about the lack of access to
the law library. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff asserts that
beginning in April 2018, Defendants completely shut down the
library and instead required inmates to use the law computer
in the restrictive housing unit, which has no librarian or
clerk to help inmates use the computer. Id. at 2.
Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that an inmate can only use the
law computer if a prison official is willing to sit with him
during the time that the inmate is using the computer.
Id. Plaintiff claims he has only been permitted to
use the law computer a few times. Id. Plaintiff
further claims that Defendants' retaliation also included
moving him to the Elliot unit which has no desk or table to
write on, no electrical outlets for his typewriter, and no
place to secure or protect legal papers and personal effects
from other inmates, officers or rodents. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff argues that because of these alleged conditions, he
is concerned he will not be able to meet scheduling deadlines
imposed by the court unless he is transferred to another
correctional facility. Id. at 4.
17, 2019, Defendant filed a response in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for emergency injunction, arguing that
Plaintiff has not shown that he is being denied access to the
courts as he has filed “a voluminous amount of
pleadings, letters, and motions” that “are
complete with legal argument and numerous citations to case
law.” (ECF No. 75 at 6).
3, 2019, the magistrate judge issued his Report recommending
that the court deny Plaintiff's motion for emergency
injunction. (ECF No. 80 at 3). The magistrate judge concluded
that Plaintiff's motion fails to address any of the
relevant requirements for injunctive relief articulated in
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
7 (2008). Id. at 2. Under the Winter
standard, “[a] plaintiff seeking a preliminary
injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the
merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities
tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest.” Id. at 20. The magistrate judge
reasoned that Plaintiff has not alleged that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm because, according to Plaintiff's
motion, the primary reason for seeking emergency relief is
that Plaintiff is concerned he will miss deadlines.
Id. at 2. The magistrate also concluded that a court
order transferring Plaintiff to another facility would not be
in the public interest because decisions relating to the
day-to-day operation of prisons are entrusted to the
discretion of the officials of the correctional institution
in question. Id. at 3. Finally, noting that
injunctive relief is only to be granted in extraordinary
circumstances, the magistrate judge determined that
“[t]he circumstances presented by Plaintiff fail to
rise to the level of exceptional and compelling.”
was advised of his right to file objections to the Report.
(ECF No. 80-1). Plaintiff has filed no objections to the
Report, however, and the time to do so has now run.
Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to
make a final determination in this matter remains with this
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not
required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report.
See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir.
1983). Rather, “in 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
recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life &
Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
careful and thorough review of the record under the
appropriate standards, the court adopts the Report (ECF No.
80), which is incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's motion for emergency injunction (ECF No. 37)
IS SO ORDERED.
OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order
pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the ...