Lott v. Tross et al

Filing 47

ORDER AND OPINION adopting 44 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; denying 21 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/27/2017.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
Mark Tillman Lott,

Case No 2:16-cv-01586-RMG

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

v.

)

ORDER AND OPINION

)

Dr. Rozanna Tross, Psy,
Joshua Tucker,
Cynathia Helff,
Kimberly Poholchuk,
Holly Scaturo,
Shelia Lindsey,
Versie Bellamy,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.

)
)

Mark Tillman Lott ("Plaintiff'), is currently in the custody of the Sexually Violent Predator
Treatment Program ("SVPTP") of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health, having been
civilly committed as a sexually violent predator under the South Carolina Sexually Violent
Predator Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-10 through § 44-48-] 70. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis, filed this action in May 2016, alleging that Defendants discriminated against
him and violated his First Amendment rights. (Dkt. No. 1.) This Court construes Plaintiffs
action to be filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 44) to deny Plaintiffs First and Second Motions for a temporary
restraining order. (Dkt Nos. 11,21.) For the reasons outlined in the R. & R., Plaintiff has not
complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding temporary restraining orders, so

this Court considers Plaintiffs First and Second Motions to seek preliminary injunctions. (Dkt.
No. 44 at ] -2.)

-1-

No objections to the R. & R. have been filed. While this Court will conduct a de novo review
of any portion of the R. & R. to which a specific objection is made, it appears Congress did not
intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the Magistrate absent
objection by any party. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. ] 40 (1985).
This Court's review of the record indicates that the R. & R. accurately analyzes the facts of
this case and the applicable law. Plaintiff has not established the elements required to obtain a
preliminary injunction, including (l) that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of
equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res.
Del Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,24 (2008). Accordingly, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the

Order of this Court. Plaintiff's First and Second Motions for a preliminary injunction are
DENIED. (Dkt. Nos. 11,21.)

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

CWL~'--T-'_
n
RichardMa~
United States District Court Judge

February ~ 7,2017
Charleston, South Carolina

-2-