United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
Bryan Harwell Chief United States District Judge.
habeas corpus matter is before the Court for consideration of
Petitioner's objections to the Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Mary Gordon Baker, who recommends denying his Emergency
Motion for Immediate Injunction. See ECF Nos. 14
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The Magistrate Judge's recommendation has no presumptive
weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination
remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review
of those portions of the R & R to which specific
objections are made, and it 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. §
636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Court must engage in a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been
filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de
novo review when a party makes only “general and
conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a
specific error in the [M]agistrate [Judge]'s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence
of specific objections to the R & R, the Court reviews
only for clear error, Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005), and the
Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1983).
who is civilly committed under the South Carolina Sexually
Violent Predator Act, has brought this action against the State
of South Carolina seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has filed an “Emergency
Motion for Immediate Injunction” alleging the photocopy
policy at his institution-limiting him to twenty-five pages
per month-is unconstitutional. See ECF No. 12. The
Magistrate Judge recommends denying Petitioner's motion
because he fails to satisfy the Winter criteria for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction. R & R at pp. 1-4.
Petitioner has filed objections to the R & R.
See ECF No. 16.
Court must deny Petitioner's motion for a simple reason
not addressed in the R & R-his motion seeks relief not
available in a habeas corpus action. Habeas corpus relief is
available for a “challenge to the fact or duration of
[one's] confinement.” Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973) (detailing what
constitutes the “core of habeas corpus”).
“[A] suit seeking habeas corpus relief cannot be
utilized as a base for the review of a refusal to grant
collateral administrative relief or as a springboard to
adjudicate matters foreign to the question of the legality of
custody.” In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 777 n.4
(4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Petitioner's motion seeking preliminary injunctive
relief-asserting institutional staff are preventing him from
making more than twenty-five photocopies per month-raises a
civil rights claim that cannot be remedied in a habeas corpus
action. Because the Court cannot entertain this
claim in a habeas action, it must deny Petitioner's
motion. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S.
637, 647 (2004) (“[A] request for a permanent
injunction does not sound in habeas, [and] it follows that
the lesser included request for a . . . preliminary
injunction does not either.”); see, e.g.,
Roberts v. Pegelow, 313 F.2d 548, 549 (4th Cir.
1963) (“The traditional function of the writ of habeas
corpus is to test the legality of the detention. It is
inappropriate to the procurement of the kind of injunctive
relief these petitioners seek.”); Weersing v.
Cartledge, 2010 WL 4004931, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 21,
2010), adopted by 2010 WL 5481767 (D.S.C. Dec. 29,
2010) (denying a habeas petitioner's motion for a
temporary restraining order because his claims regarding
denial of copies and access to the law library did not fall
within the core of habeas corpus relief).
foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS AS
MODIFIED the R & R [ECF No. 14] and
DENIES Petitioner's Emergency Motion for
Immediate Injunction [ECF No. 12].
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Magistrate Judge issued the R
& R in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.). The Court is mindful of its duty
to liberally construe Petitioner's pro se filings.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(recognizing “[a] document filed pro se is to
be liberally construed” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). But see United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d
789, 797 (4th Cir. 2012) (“Although courts must
liberally construe the claims of pro se litigants,
the special judicial solicitude with which a district court
should view ...