Robinson v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al
Filing
146
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court adopts Magistrate Judge Rogers' Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that Robinson's motion for a preliminary injunction 96 is denied. It is further ORDERED that Robinson's motion for partial summary judgment 103 is denied. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 6/16/2011. (mcot, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Corey Jawan Robinson, #294233,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections; )
Officer S. Mosher; Doctor W. Jones;
)
Sgt. Jordan Williams; Sgt. Marado Smalls; )
Cpl. John Guinn; Ofc. Susan Spann;
)
Nurse C. Felder; Nurse V. Ashford;
)
Doctor R. Babb; Nurse K. Linnen;
)
Warden M. Bodison; Assoc. Warden F.
)
Thompson, Sgt. F. Jefferson; Ofc. S.
)
Nicholas; Lt. R. Stewart; Nurse V. Frazier, )
)
Defendants. )
C.A. No. 4:10-157-HMH-TER
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 of the District of South Carolina.1 Corey Jawan Robinson (“Robinson”),
a state prisoner housed at Lieber Correctional Institution, brought this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. On December 3, 2010,
Robinson filed a motion for preliminary injunction, contending that Defendants have retaliated
against him for filing the instant action and requesting that he be transferred to an alternative
1
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final
determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of
those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made. The
court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the
magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
prison. Magistrate Judge Rogers recommends denying Robinson’s motion for preliminary
injunction.2 Robinson filed objections to the Report on June 14, 2011.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation must be specific. Failure to file specific
objections constitutes a waiver of a party’s right to further judicial review, including appellate
review, if the recommendation is accepted by the district judge. See United States v. Schronce,
727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984). In the absence of specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Robinson contends that the magistrate judge failed to adequately explain the denial of his
motion for a preliminary injunction. (Objections 3.) He, therefore, urges the court to reject the
magistrate judge’s “cursory dismissal of [his] legitimate claims” and issue a preliminary
injunction. (Id.) The court declines to do so.
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that will be issued only upon a
showing by the plaintiff (1) “that he is likely to succeed on the merits,” (2) “that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” (3) “that the balance of equities tips
in his favor,” and (4) “that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Because of the extraordinary nature of injunctive
relief, the Supreme Court has admonished that interlocutory injunctions “may only be awarded
upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 376. Robinson has failed
to make the requisite showing. In his motion for a preliminary injunction, Robinson
2
On January 3, 2011, Robinson filed a motion for partial summary judgment. In his
Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Rogers recommends denying the motion.
Robinson does not object to that portion of the Report. (Objections n.1.)
2
conclusorily enumerates various forms of retaliation, including assault, slander, denial of access
to the courts, denial of medication, and denial of clothing and bedding. (Mem. Supp. Inj.,
generally.) Robinson, however, has made no effort in either his original motion or in his
objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation to demonstrate that each of the
Winter elements is satisfied. Although Robinson maintains that Defendants’ response to his
motion contains only “conclusory statements and ma[kes] no effort to address the facts alleged
and the application of law to facts,” the burden is on Robinson to establish that he is entitled to
injunctive relief. (Objections 3.) Robinson has failed to carry his burden.
After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case,
the court adopts Magistrate Judge Roger’s Report and Recommendation.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Robinson’s motion for a preliminary injunction, docket number 96, is
denied. It is further
ORDERED that Robinson’s motion for partial summary judgment, docket number 103,
is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
June 16, 2011
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
