Butler v. Bessinger et al

Filing 130

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts the R.&R. (Dkt. No. 112 ) as the order of the Court. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 101 ) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 04/02/2018. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

Lavadre Butler,

Plaintiff,
v.

Trevor Bessinger, Lisa Young,
Gregory Washington, Mr. Escalyne,
Mr. Suarez, Mr. Braddy, Mr. Shorter,
Mr. Williams, Mr. Wilson,
Defendants.

Case No.: 4:16-cv-3662

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

ORDER AND OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R. ") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 112) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiffs motion for a
preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R. & R. as the order
of the Court.
I.

Background and Relevant Facts

Plaintiff Lavadre Butler is currently confined at the Lieber Correctional Institution, and
he is proceeding prose. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his
constitutional rights when they used excessive force and were deliberately indifferent to his
medical needs when he was confined at Broad River Correctional Institution. (Dkt. No. 99.)
Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on February 2, 2018, seeking this
Court' s Order requiring Defendants and their counterparts throughout the South Carolina
Department of Corrections to "immediately cease all deprivation of the Plaintiffs rights and
basic human needs." (Dkt. No. 101). The Magistrate Judge issued an R. & R. recommending that

-1-

this Court deny Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction because he failed to satisfy the
four Winter factors courts consider to determine whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate.
(Dkt. No. 112 at 2-4; see Winter v. Natural Res. Def Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)).

II.

Legal Standards

This Court liberally construes pleadings filed by pro se litigants to allow the development
of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S . 519 (1972). The requirement ofliberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore
a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal claim, nor can the
Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. See Weller v.

Dep 't ofSocial Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with
making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).

III.

Discussion

No party has filed objections to the R. & R. , and the deadline to file objections has
passed. In the absence of any specific objections, "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." See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F .3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). This Court finds that the Magistrate

Judge has correctly applied the controlling law to the facts of this case.

-2-

IV.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court adopts the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 112) as the order
of the Court. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 101) is DENIED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court Judge
April ~
, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina

-3-