CLARK v. COWENS et al
ORDER denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE TILMAN E SELF, III on 6/4/2021. (chc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ROBERT L. CLARK,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
DR. COWENS, et al.,
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
as to Clark’s claims against Dr. Cowens and the Warden of Macon State Prison. See
[Doc. 10]. However, the Court did not perform a de novo review of the “immediate
injunction” portion of the R&R. See [Doc. 5, pp. 5–6]. The Magistrate Judge recommends
that, to the extent Clark is requesting a preliminary injunction, it is due to be denied
because Clark does not show a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” [Doc. 5,
p. 6]. Clark objects, arguing that an application of the factors in McDonald’s Corp. v.
Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998) would warrant granting his request for
preliminary injunction. [Doc. 9, pp. 3–4]. The Court will thus review this portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s R&R de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Clark requests that the Court issue an injunction that the “[D]efendants be held
in contempt,” a sanction of “$300,000.00 . . .be paid to the [P]laintiff,” and the Court
issue “five subpoenas for evidence needed from the [D]efendants.” [Doc. 3, pp. 1–2].
A Court should only grant a preliminary injunction is the movant
shows the following: (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2)
irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the
threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed
injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction
would not be adverse to the public interest.
McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).
Because Clark does not show a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits,” id., the
“extraordinary and drastic” remedy of a preliminary injunction is due to be denied. All
Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem. Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)
(holding that a preliminary injunction is not to be granted if any one of the four
elements is not satisfied). Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that Clark’s Motion for Immediate Injunction [Doc. 3] be DENIED.1
SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of June, 2021.
S/Tilman E. Self, III
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Clark also “opposes the order of referral and does not consent to a Magistrate Judge conducting any
proceedings in a jury or non jury civil matter” and cites to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). See [Doc. 8]. The Court
DENIES this motion [Doc. 8]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Magistrate Judge may make
recommendations to the Court for the disposition of motions for injunctive relief and motions to dismiss
a case or for summary judgment, among others. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) is not applicable here.
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?