Al-Haqq v. Byars et al

Filing 93

ORDER adopting 78 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks; denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Clerk is directed to refer this action back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 3/25/2014.(ssam, )

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

Bilal A. Al-Haqq,
Plaintiff,
vs.
William R. Byars, Jr., Director; Warden John
Pate; Major Walter Worrick; Lt. Jennings,
SMU; Sgt. A. DeLoach; Corporal Bryant,
SMU; Ofc. Ford; Ofc. Frasier; Dr. Thomas E.
Byrne; Nurse Alecia Jones-Thompson, in their
official and individual capacity,
Defendants.
____________________________________

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

C/A No. 2:13-2043-JFA-BHH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Bilal A. Al-Haqq, is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections. At the time of the incidents giving rise to this action, the plaintiff
was housed at the Allendale Correctional Institution. He brings this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations of his constitutional rights including deliberate
indifference to this medical needs, excessive force, and retaliation. At the time of the filing
of his complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin any
contact with defendant Bryant and also requesting medical care for his injuries.
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).
1

Recommendation and opines that the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction should
be denied. 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 filed timely objections thereto. The court will address the
objections herein.
As the Magistrate Judge notes in her Report, to obtain a temporary restraining order
(TRO) or preliminary injunction, plaintiff must show that (1) he is likely to succeed on the
merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the
balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter
v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Magistrate Judge recommends
denial of the plaintiff’s motion because the plaintiff has not shown, nor has he addressed, the
Winter factors.
In his objections to the Report, plaintiff indicates that he has received an MRI as was
requested in his motion, therefore, the MRI is not an issue any longer in this litigation. The
plaintiff otherwise objects to the Report stating that he has “never so much as heard of the
Winter case” and is not trained in the law. He then simply recites the factors in Winter,
stating, “The plaintiff claims that without the court’s help he is likely to suffer irreparable
harm; that the plaintiff is likely to succeed at trial; that the plaintiff has suffered and will
suffer more if the injunction is denied than the defendants will suffer if it is granted; and a
preliminary injunction will serve the public interest.” Plaintiff then repeats his original claim
that he continues to be retaliated against by defendant Cpl. Marvin Bryant, he has repeatedly
2

been denied treatment for his eyes, and is being denied therapy recommended by the
orthopedic specialist. Merely stating the Winter factors in the affirmative does not avail the
plaintiff with his burden to obtain relief. Therefore, the objections are overruled.
After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, the Report and
Recommendation, and the objections thereto, this court adopts and incorporates the Report
herein by reference. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF
No. 3) is denied.
The Clerk is directed to refer this action back to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 25, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

3