Eaglin v. Sterling et al

Filing 132

ORDER ACCEPTING 116 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION denies 60 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion for TRO. Plaintiff's motions requesting a ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining o rder ( 83 , 93 , 110 ) are hereby rendered moot; to the extent those filings could be construed as separate and independent motions by the Plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief, those motions ( 83 , 93 , 110 ) are denied. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 12/3/2015. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Adrian T. Eaglin,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Larry Cartledge, Warden; Florence
)
Mauney, Ass. Warden; Curtis Earlly;
)
Richard Turnner; Williams, Captain;
)
Vernon Miller, Captain; Susan Duffy,
)
Captain; Springs, Captain;
)
Kevin Horn, Lieutenant; Wessinger,
)
Lieutenant; Thurber, Sergeant; Daniel
)
Cotter, Sergeant; Palmer, Sergeant;
)
Blackburn, Sergeant; McCall, Sergeant;
)
Ragland, Sergeant; Valero, Sergeant;
)
Christopher T. Dillard, c/o;
)
Gardner, #053548, c/o; N. Morgan,
)
c/o; Boatwrite, c/o; R. Martin,
)
#053630, c/o; Luvett, c/o; Brown, c/o;
)
Merck, c/o; Hagan, Investigator;
)
C. Hindenburg, II, G.C.; Nancy
)
Murchant, Mail Clerk; Tamara Conwell,
)
Mail Clerk; Benjamin Lewis, Doctor;
)
Ame Enloe, Nurse Practitioner; Mathew L. )
Harper, Nurse Administrator; Katherine W. )
Burgess, Nurse; Lindsey Harris, Nurse;
)
Dawn R. Chase, Nurse; Fish, Sergeant;
)
Bryant Sterling, Director; Bryan
)
Degeogis; Cashwell, Lieutenant,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No.: 0:14-cv-04003-TLW-PJG

ORDER

Plaintiff, Adrian T. Eaglin (“Plaintiff”), filed this pro se civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 on or about October 15, 2014 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. #1).
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on November 20, 2014.1 (Doc. #16).

1

A document is considered filed on the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for
mailing to the court. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

This matter now comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“the Report”) issued on September 17, 2015 by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett,
to whom this case had previously been assigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02 (B)(2), DSC. (Doc. #116). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
addresses several motions filed by Plaintiff requesting a preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order. (Docs. #60, #83, #93, #110). Defendants filed responses opposing Plaintiff’s
motions. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiff’s
original motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Doc. #60), rendering
the remaining motions (Docs. #83, #93, #110) moot. (See Doc #116). The Plaintiff did not file
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file objections
expired on October 5, 2015.2 (See Doc. #116).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s Report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence
of objections to the Report 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).
This Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
the record in this case, and the relevant filings. Plaintiff failed to file objections to the Report.
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the
Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #116). Plaintiff’s motion
for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (Doc. #60) is hereby DENIED.

2

The Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff at the mailing address the Plaintiff
provided to the Court on September 17, 2015. (See Doc. #117). The mail was not returned.
2

Plaintiff’s motions requesting a ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order (Docs. #83, #93, #110) are hereby rendered moot; to the extent those filings could
be construed as separate and independent motions by the Plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive
relief, those motions are denied. (Docs. #83, #93, #110).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
December 3, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

3