Juste v. Columbia Regional Care Center et al

Filing 44

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections, adopts the Report 36 , and incorporates it herein.Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that Plaintiff's Motion for a Permanent Injunction 27 is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 12/28/2016. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
ANDRE JUSTE,

§
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
vs.
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-2974-MGL-TER
§
COLUMBIA REGIONAL CARE CENTER, §
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, DR.
§
VERNELLE FOGLE, DR. CYNTHIA
§
MCFADDEN, BRICE MCCLEASE,
§
RONALD LAWRENCE, ROSE, NANCY
§
CRAWFORD, INDIVIDUALS, MEDICAL
§
STAFF, NURSES, VOLUNTEERS,
§
INDIVIDUALS, MEDICAL STAFF,
§
SECURITY CUSTODY OFFICERS STAFF, §
PATIENTS, INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS,
§
SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT §
DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
§
JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
§
PRISONS, DIRECTOR OF
§
ACCREDITATION ON NATIONAL
§
COMMISSION ON CORRECTIONAL
§
HEALTH, SECRETARY OF HEALTH
§
AND HUMAN SERVICES, FOOD AND
§
DRUG ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
§
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN §
SERVICES, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF §
CORRECTIONS, INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS, §
C.D.C., U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
§
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, and
§
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
§
SECURITY,
§
§
Defendants.
§

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
This case was filed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. The matter
is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States
Magistrate Judge suggesting that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction be denied. The
Report was made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of
South Carolina.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has
no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report 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 with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on December 7, 2016, and the Clerk of Court entered
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report on December 19, 2016. The Court has reviewed the objections,
but finds them to be without merit. Therefore, it will enter judgment accordingly.
In Plaintiff’s objections, he makes no specific objections to the Report. Instead, he generally
reiterates claims that the Magistrate Judge has already considered and rejected. Because the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s treatment of those issues, it need not discuss them again here.
Suffice it to say Plaintiff has utterly failed to allege he meets all four elements under the standard
set forth in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Therefore,
the Court will overrule Plaintiff’s objections.

2

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case pursuant to the standard set
forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections, adopts the Report, and incorporates it herein.
Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 28th day of December, 2016, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

*****
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this Order within sixty days from the
date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3