Lynch v. LEWIS et al

Filing 51

ORDER adopting 44 Report and Recommendations; denying 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 19 Motion for TRO; granting 18 Motion for Leave to Amend. Ordered by U.S. District Judge HUGH LAWSON on 6/24/2014 (nbp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER A. LYNCH,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-24 (HL)

v.
SHARON LEWIS, M.D. and
BILLY NICHOLS, M.D.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This case is before the Court on a Recommendation from United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff. (Doc. 44). Judge Langstaff recommends
denying Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive and declaratory relief. (Docs. 5, 19).
Judge Langstaff recommends granting Plaintiff’s first Motion for Leave to Amend.
(Doc. 18).
Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 49). Plaintiff asserts
that according to the Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorder, Defendants
are denying her adequate care and treatment. In order to qualify for injunctive
relief, Plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood that she will prevail
on the merits; (2) that she will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction
issues; (3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage the injunction may cause
the opposing party; (4) issuance of the injunction would not be adverse to the

public interest.

Zardui-Quintana v. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir.

1985). “‘The preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to
be granted unless the movant “clearly carries the burden of persuasion” as to the
four prerequisites.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d
1511, 1519 (11th Cir. 1983)).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are not providing her with the level of care
suggested by a proffered standard for treating Gender Identify Disorder.
However, Plaintiff’s reliance on these standards and unsupported claim that she
should be receiving different treatment fails to establish that she will suffer
irreparable harm if the injunction does not issue or that other relief is not
available. See Cunningham v. Adams, 808 F.2d 815, 821 (11th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff thus does not meet the requisite burden of persuasion.
Accordingly, after conducting a de novo review, the Court overrules
Plaintiff’s objection. The Court accepts and adopts the Recommendation and
denies Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive and declaratory relief. (Docs. 5, 19). The
Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 18) as a matter of
course pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a).
SO ORDERED, this 24th day of June, 2014.
s/ Hugh Lawson______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

aks
2