Bailey v. Mosley et al

Filing 64

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 48 Report and Recommendation.; denying 35 Motion for TRO; denying 35 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 04/12/2017.(adeh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ORANGEBURG DIVISION
John Thomas Bailey,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden Bonita Mosley,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No.: 5:16-cv-2942-PMD-KDW
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner John Thomas Bailey’s objections to United
States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West’s report and recommendation (“R & R”) (ECF Nos.
53 & 48).

The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Bailey’s motion for a temporary

restraining order (ECF No. 35). For the reasons stated herein, the Court overrules Bailey’s
objections and adopts the R & R.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The R & R has no
presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). This Court must conduct a de novo
review of any portion of the R & R to which a timely, specific objection is made, and the Court
may accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in whole or
in part. Id. Additionally, the Court may receive more evidence or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions. Id. A party’s failure to object is taken as the party’s
agreement with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Absent a timely, specific objection—or as to those portions of the R & R to which no specific
objection is made—this Court “must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

DISCUSSION
A petitioner seeking injunctive relief must show (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of
equities tips in his favor; and (4) that the injunctive relief he seeks is the public interest. Winter
v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

Here, the Magistrate Judge

recommends denying Bailey’s motion because he has not satisfied any of the elements. Each of
Bailey’s four objections relates to one of those requirements.
In discussing the first Winter requirement, the Magistrate Judge stated that many of
Bailey’s factual allegations are irrelevant to this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 case. Bailey objects to that
relevance determination. The Court sees no error, and in any event the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that Bailey has not clearly shown he is likely to succeed. Therefore, the Court
overrules Bailey’s objection as to the first requirement.
If the party seeking the injunction fails to establish even one of the Winter requirements,
the court must deny the request. See Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342, 346
(4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]ll four requirements must be satisfied.”), vacated on other grounds, 559
U.S. 1089 (2010).

Consequently, the Court need not address the merits of Bailey’s three

remaining objections.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Bailey’s objections are
OVERRULED, that the R & R is ADOPTED, and that Bailey’s motion for a temporary
restraining order is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 12, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina

2