DREWRY v. CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 234 MOTION for Injunctive Relief filed by BRANDON B DREWRY. Objections to R&R due by 4/12/2017. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BRANDON B. DREWRY,
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, et al., )
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
In this action, Plaintiff Brandon Drewry, currently an inmate at the Maine State
Prison, alleges that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference toward his serious
medical needs. The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief.
(ECF No. 234.) Through the motion, Plaintiff requests the Court order Defendants to
schedule further laser procedures to treat one of his medical conditions (hereditary
hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) and related nosebleeds), and to provide an extension
cord for use with his vaporizer. (Motion at 1.)
Following a review of the motion, and after consideration of the parties’ arguments,
I recommend the Court deny the motion.
When evaluating a request for injunctive relief, courts “must consider (1) the
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the potential for irreparable harm if the injunction
is denied; (3) the balance of relevant impositions, i.e., the hardship to the nonmovant if
enjoined as contrasted with the hardship to the movant if no injunction issues; and (4) the
effect (if any) of the court’s ruling on the public interest.” Ross–Simons of Warwick, Inc.
v. Baccarat, Inc., 102 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing Weaver v. Henderson, 984 F.2d
11, 12 &n.3 (1st Cir. 1993), and Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert, 934 F.2d 4, 5 (1st
Cir. 1991)). “The sine qua non of this four-part inquiry is likelihood of success on the
merits; if the moving party cannot demonstrate that he is likely to succeed in his quest, the
remaining factors become matters of idle curiosity.” New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc. v.
SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002).
As explained in the recommended decision on Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (ECF No. 282), Plaintiff cannot prevail on his claims against Defendants.
Plaintiff, therefore, cannot satisfy an essential element of proof necessary to obtain
injunctive relief. Furthermore, given that the record demonstrates that Plaintiff has been
receiving regular treatment for the HHT and nosebleeds, including treatment with an
outside consultant, Julius Damion, M.D., an ENT, the record does not support a finding
that Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm or a particular hardship if the Court does not direct
Plaintiff’s medical care. In fact, the only medical expert evidence of record suggests the
current course of treatment is appropriate. Finally, for the Court to intervene in the care
and treatment of Plaintiff on this record would be contrary to the public interest, which
militates against interference with prison administration. As the Eighth Circuit recognized,
“judicial restraint is especially called for in dealing with the complex and intractable
problems of prison administration.” Rogers v. Scurr, 676 F.2d 1211, 1214 (8th Cir. 1982).
In sum, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to injunctive relief.
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the
district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within
fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive
memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the
objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 29th day of March, 2017.
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?