English v. Andrews et al

Filing 119

ORDER ADOPTING 104 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 39 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Roderick English, 97 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Roderick English, 38 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief f iled by Roderick English, 57 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Roderick English, 37 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Roderick English, 95 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Roderick English, 36 Motion for Miscellane ous Relief filed by Roderick English, 35 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Roderick English. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment (ECF No. 37) is denied. Plaintiff's motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 35, 36, 38, 39, 57, 95, and 97) are denied and this matter returned to the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 9/3/2014. Motions referred to Shiva V Hodges.(abuc)

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

Roderick Jerome English,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ms. Andrews, RN; Jane Wrecsis, Health
Manager; Mr. Parker, Warden; John B. Mcree;
Vera Courson, RN; William R. Byars, Jr.; and
Nurse Cebags,
Defendants.
______________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 1:13-2793-JFA-SVH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Roderick Jerome English, is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC). He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
raising various claims deliberate indifference to a serious medical need while he was
incarcerated at the McCormick Correctional Institution (MCI). Plaintiff has moved for
default judgment and a preliminary injunction. In his request for injunctive relief, plaintiff
requests lab testing, a change to his sick call schedule, a review by this court of the SCDC
medical policies, pictures of his leg, and a consultation by a bone specialist.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a Report and

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule
73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews
v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Recommendation and opines that the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment should be
denied. The Magistrate Judge also recommends that the remaining requests for injunctive
relief be denied as well. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of
law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation and he has timely done so.
It appears that the Magistrate Judge granted a reasonable extension of time to the
defendants to respond to the complaint, and they did so within the time deadline established
by the Magistrate Judge. Such a practice is common in this district, and the court finds no
error in the extension of time granted by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, plaintiff’s
motion for default judgment (ECF No. 37) is denied.
Regarding the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, the Magistrate Judge carefully
analyzes the factors to be addressed and concludes that plaintiff has failed to carry his burden
of showing entitlement to relief. The court has reviewed the plaintiff’s objections and is
constrained to agree with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiff has not carried his burden
on his motion. For this reason, the court overrules all objections.
The plaintiff has filed several additional motions which appear to be an effort to have
this court order his early release from state custody. Although he styles the motion as one
for a “Clemson” release, the court assumes he means that he is requesting clemency from this
court because of his injuries. This court is powerless to order the early release of a state

2

inmate for clemency reasons or for any other reasons apart from a constitutional violation.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and
Recommendation, and the plaintiff’s objections thereto, the court finds the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation proper and adopts and incorporates it herein by reference.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 35, 36, 38, 39, 57, 95,
and 97) are denied and this matter returned to the Magistrate Judge .
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

September 3, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

3