Plummer v. Riley et al

Filing 74

ORDER RULING ON 63 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 29 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Andrew Plummer. The Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and denies Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 3/2/16. (hhil, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Andrew Plummer,

Case No. 2:15-cv-16-TLW-MGB

PLAINTIFF
v.
ORDER
Warden Tim Riley, IGC Ms. Powe, DHO
Glidewell,
DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff Andrew Plummer, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (ECF No. 1.) The matter now
comes before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed on February
4, 2016, by United States Magistrate Judge Baker, to whom this case is assigned. (ECF No. 63.)
In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary
injunction in which he seeks an order requiring Defendants to expunge a charge from his prison
disciplinary record. (See ECF No. 29.) Defendants oppose this motion. (ECF No. 32.) Objections
to the R&R were due on February 22, 2016, and no objections were filed. This matter is now ripe
for decision.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence
of objections to the R&R, 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 R&R, the record in this case, and the relevant law.
While Plaintiff touched on the factors for an injunction in his one-and-a-half-page motion, his
1

asserted basis for preliminary relief is inadequate to grant the motion. The motion does not meet
the standard for relief set forth in Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008). For
this reason, and the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge, the R&R is hereby ACCEPTED, and
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
March 2, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

2