Hewitt v. Ward et al

Filing 35

ORDER AND OPINION RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting and incorporating to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this Order, re 26 Report and Recommendation, denying 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion for TRO filed by Steven Lee Hewitt. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 12/5/2012. (jpet, ) Modified to edit text on 12/5/2012 (jpet, ).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Steven Lee Hewitt,

) Civil Action No.: 0:12-2373-MGL
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
ORDER AND OPINION
)
Robert Ward; Willie T. Smith; Wayne
)
McCabe; Officer Helms,
)
)
Defendants. )
______________________________
Plaintiff Steven Lee Hewitt (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently housed at Lieber Correctional
Institution in Ridgeville, South Carolina.

Plaintiff generally complains of treatment,

accommodations, and conditions at Lieber Correctional Institution and asserts violations
of his constitutional rights and state and federal laws. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pretrial handling.
On or about August 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion in the form of an “Order to Show
Cause for an Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order” which states that
he wants an order from the court “enjoining the defendants, their successors in office,
agents and employees, and all other persons acting in concert and participation with them
from discontinuing to provide basic human needs, to discontinue suffering mental health
patients to extreme conditions, to discontinue to act with deliberate indifference to the basic
human needs of the plaintiffs.” (ECF No. 8 at 1.)
-1-

Defendants filed a Response in

Opposition to this Motion on October 11, 2012. (ECF No. 18). On October 19, 2012,
Magistrate Judge Gossett issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending
that the court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for “Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order.” (ECF No. 26). The Report sets forth the relevant facts
and standards of law on this matter and the court incorporates such without recitation. On
November 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed a timely Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (“Memorandum”) as a reply to Defendants’ opposition, however, the
Memorandum was filed after the entry of the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 28)
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court.
recommendation has no presumptive weight.

The

The responsibility to make a final

determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court may
also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id. The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made.
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (ECF No. 26 at 5). However, he has not done so and the time for doing
so expired on November 5, 2012. In the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court
need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must “only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
-2-

While Plaintiff failed to file timely objections to the Report and Recommendation, the
court takes note of Plaintiff’s timely filed Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction which concerns the same subject matter addressed in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 28). This Memorandum was not before
the Magistrate Judge at the time she issued her Report and therefore was not considered
in the recommendation made to this court. (ECF No. 26.) In the interest of fairness, this
court has considered the arguments made in Plaintiff’s Memorandum. Plaintiff generally
complains about the prison conditions on the “Ashley A side” dorm of the Lieber
Correctional Institution and the lack of attention given to the needs of inmates with mental
illnesses housed there. (ECF No. 28 at 2.) Plaintiff claims there is a “realistic threat of
irreparable harm due to the repeated behavior of the prison officials” and seeks “immediate
help” from the court on behalf of himself and other inmates.1 (ECF No. 28 at 5.)
The Magistrate Judge considered the factors a plaintiff must satisfy in order to obtain
injunctive relief and found that Plaintiff has not satisfied these requirements. (ECF No. 26.)
The arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Memorandum do not change the well-reasoned analysis
set forth by the Magistrate Judge recommending denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction based on the record before the court. “It is well established that absent the most
extraordinary circumstances, federal courts are not to immerse themselves in the
management of state prisons or substitute their judgment for that of the trained penological

1

Plaintiff has been previously informed by the court that he cannot represent
another prisoner or bring a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other prisoners.
(ECF No. 13 at 1.) Thus, the court addresses the relief sought in Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction solely as it applies to Plaintiff on his own behalf.
-3-

authorities charged with the administration of such facilities.” Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d
266, 267 (4th Cir. 1994)(vacating the district court’s issuance of a mandatory injunction
ordering prison officials to take certain actions). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that
circumstances on “Ashley A side,” particularly relative to Plaintiff warrant the extraordinary
relief sought.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, the court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper.
Plaintiff has not met his burden in establishing that a Preliminary Injunction or Temporary
Restraining Order is appropriate in this case. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and
incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to the extent that it is not
inconsistent with this Order. Plaintiff’s Motion for “Order to Show Cause for Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order” (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge

Spartanburg, South Carolina
December 5, 2012

-4-