Keith v. Cartledge et al

Filing 78

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION adopting 59 Report and Recommendation, denying 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, denying 38 Motion for for Defendants to take Physical and Mental Examinations and a Blood Test, denying 40 Motion for Physical and Mental Examination of Persons in the Custody of Defendants, denying 42 Motion for Entry of Default, denying 45 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion for TRO, denying 49 Motion for Entry of Default, denying 52 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 10/11/2013. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINN'· ~L'Trovon Acquarius Keith,
Plaintiff,
v.
Larry Cartledge; Florence Mauney;
Major Early; Rhonda Abston; Captain
Degeorgis; Sergeant Eich; William R.
Byars, Jr.; Jon Ozmint; and Ms. Harris,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

ZOIl OCT f 1 P f: 3q
No.1: 13-cv-1131-RMG

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge ("R&R") that this Court deny several motions filed by Plaintiff, (Dkt. Nos. 19,38,40,42,
45,49, 52, 56). For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees with and adopts the R&R as the
order of the Court and therefore denies these motions.

Background
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights.

(Dkt. No.1).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) DSC, this matter was
automatically referred to a Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling.

Since commencing this

action, Plaintiff has filed motions requesting transfer, (Dkt. Nos. 19, 56), for an order requiring
Defendants to take medical exams, (Dkt. No. 38, 40), requesting that he be provided certain
medication, (Dkt. No. 45), for a preliminary injunction relating to legal materials, (Dkt. No. 52),
and for entry of default against Defendants Harris, (Dkt. No. 42), and Ozmint, (Dkt. No. 49). On
September 5, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending the Court deny these
motions. (Dkt. No. 59). Plaintiff then filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections,

(Dkt. No. 70), which the Court granted, (Dkt. No. 71). Plaintiff then filed objections within the
extended period. (Dkt. No. 76).
Legal Standard

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making
a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which specific objection is made.
Additionally, 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). This Court may also
"receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id
Discussion

The Magistrate Judge liberally construed the pleadings, accurately summarized the law,
and correctly concluded that the Court should deny these motions.

The Magistrate Judge

accurately set forth the legal standard regarding preliminary injunctions and found Plaintiff could
not satisfY that exacting standard. The Court agrees that Plaintiff's motions requesting injunctive
relief should be denied. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 38, 40,45, 52, 56). Plaintiffs objections relate only to
his motions for transfer and for legal materials. (Dkt. No. 76). The Court finds these objections
fail to show that Plaintiff would prevail on the merits regarding his motion for transfer because a
prisoner has no constitutional right to be housed in a particular custody level. Merriweather v.
Reynolds, 586 F. Supp. 2d 548, 557 (D. S.C. 2008). Plaintiffs objections regarding his legal mail

are also unavailing because he has not shown irreparable harm-his several motions have
reached the Court and he has suffered no prej udice from any delay in the prison mailroom.

2

Finally, the Court agrees that Plaintiff is not entitled to entry of default as to Defendants Harris,
(Dkt. No. 42), and Ozmint, (Dkt. No. 49), because these Defendants filed timely Answers.
Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court agrees with and adopts the R&R as the order of
the Court. (Dkt. No. 59). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motions listed in the R&R.
(Dkt. Nos. 19,38,40,42,45,49,52,56).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
October ~, 2013
Charleston, South Carolina

3