Goss v. Stirling et al

Filing 87

ORDER adopting 51 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying 37 Motion for TRO; denying 37 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 11/2/2018.(ssam, )

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

Darrell L. Goss,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Bryan P. Stirling; Warden Cothran;
)
Associate Warden J. Dean; G. Leaman, )
Associate Warden; Major R. Chvala;
)
Captain L. Pack; Captain Staggers;
)
Lieutenant Larry; Warden John R. Pate; )
Virginia Grubbs, Postal Director;
)
D. Phillips, Assistant Postal Director;
)
and Cindy Beer, US Postal Director,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-326-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2)(e), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for
preliminary determinations. On August 22, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Mary
Gordon Baker issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) examining and ultimately
recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, or
in the alternative, for a preliminary injunction. Attached to the Report was a notice advising
Plaintiff of the right to file objections to the Report within fourteen days of receiving a copy.
Plaintiff filed objections on September 7, 2018, and Defendants filed a reply on September
21, 2018.
In her Report, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff failed to establish the
elements necessary to obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

Specifically, with respect to Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order preventing
Defendant Stirling from violating Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to access the courts, or
in the alternative, for a preliminary injunction directing Defendants to permit Plaintiff to
possess his legal materials and have access to a law library, the Magistrate Judge found
that Plaintiff failed to show: (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that he is likely
to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief; (3) that the balance of the equities
weighs in his favor; or (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter v. Natural
Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). The Magistrate Judge stated, “Plaintiff has
not offered any evidence of actual injury resulting from his alleged denial of access to the
courts. He has not indicated that he has missed a filing deadline or failed to present a
claim as a result of any act of Defendants.” (ECF No. 51 at 2.)
In his objections, Plaintiff asserts that he did offer evidence of actual injury by
providing grievances indicating that he complained about prison officials’ refusal to provide
him access to his legal materials. In addition, Plaintiff quotes a portion of the prison’s
policy regarding an inmate’s ability to retrieve his or her legal materials while in lockup,
which Plaintiff argues indicates that he is allowed to request an exchange law materials
from his legal box as needed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the 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 only of those portions of the Report to
which specific objections are 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
2

Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must
‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Here, after review, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections do not alter the
Magistrate Judge’s conclusion. Although Plaintiff has offered evidence indicating that he
has complained about being denied access to his legal materials, the Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy Winter. In other words, the
Court does not find, based on the current record, that Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of
success on the merits or that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief. Nor
does the Court finds that the equities tip in Plaintiff’s favor or that an injunction is in the
public interest.
Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 51);
overrules Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 55); and denies Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order, or in the alternative, for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 37).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce H. Hendricks
United States District Judge
November 2, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina

3