Ham v. Sly et al

Filing 74

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 31 . It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 5] in the above captionedcase is DENIED. Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 5/24/2013. (kric, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Angelo Ham,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
James Sly, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 6:12-2998-JMC

ORDER

This matter is before the court on review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“Report”), [Dkt. No. 31], filed on February 20, 2013, recommending that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 5] in the above-captioned case be denied.
Plaintiff, a pro se state prisoner, seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Defendants,
prison officials, violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by failing to provide
adequate hygiene and cleaning supplies, which caused him to have certain medical issues. This
order comes after Plaintiff timely filed his Objections to Report of Magistrate Judge
(“Objections”) on March 5, 2013 [Dkt. No. 39]. For the reasons set forth herein, the court
ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction [Dkt. No. 5].
The relevant facts and legal standards as to the underlying § 1983 action are set forth in
detail in the Report, which the court incorporates herein by reference. At this juncture, the court
must determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction. “[T]he award of a
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only if the moving party clearly
establishes entitlement to the relief sought.” Fed. Leasing, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 650
1 

F.2d 495, 499 (4th Cir. 1981). To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must meet each of
four requirements: he “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Report found that Plaintiff failed to meet the standard required for
the court to grant a preliminary injunction. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to establish that he will
suffer irreparable harm because he admits that he receives some hygiene supplies, because he has
not shown a causal connection between the alleged inadequate supply of hygiene products and
his medical issues, and because his medical records detail the medical staff timely attention to his
complaints [Dkt. 31 at 3]. The Report also found Plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success
on the merits because he proffered no evidence aside from conclusory assertions [Dkt. No. 31 at
3].
Plaintiff, in his Objections, argues that the Report’s conclusions are in error. First, he
contends that he is likely to succeed on the merits because “SCDC Policy/Procedure ADM16.08, ‘Commissary Operations’ . . . has set [a] minimal standard” of the amount of hygiene
products Plaintiff is to receive [Dkt. No. 39 at 1]. Second, Plaintiff argues that he will suffer
irreparable harm because “it is common sense to believe . . . that by being denied the adequate
hygiene and/or cleaning supplies, he has indeed suffered from the numerous medical illnesses”
[Dkt. No. 39 at 2]. Third, Plaintiff objects to the Report’s reference to the actions of the medical
staff because his claim is not directed at any medical personnel and he does not allege a medical
care violation; rather his complaint is a condition-of-confinement claim [Dkt. No. 39 at 3].
The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a

2 

recommendation to this court.

The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The

responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination 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 Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with
instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Objections to a Report and Recommendation must specifically identify portions of the
Report and the bases for those objections. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). “Parties are deemed to have
waived an objection to a magistrate judge’s report if they do not present their claims to the
district court.” United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, “a
general objection to a magistrate judge’s findings is not sufficient—‘a party must object to the
[magistrate’s] finding or recommendation . . . with sufficient specificity so as to reasonably alert
the district court of the true ground for the objection’” Id. (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478
F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007) (alterations in original)). General objections include those that
merely restate or reformulate arguments a party has made previously to a magistrate judge. See
Jackson v. Astrue, No. 1:09cv467, 2011 WL 1883026 (W.D.N.C. May 17, 2011); Aldrich v.
Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). Such objections, stating no more than a
general disagreement with the magistrate judge’s findings, do not alert the court to errors and are
thus not accurately labeled as “objections.” See Jackson, 2011 WL 1883026; Aldrich, 327 F.
Supp. 2d at 747. Therefore, if a party fails to properly object because the objections lack the
requisite specificity, de novo review by the court is not required. See Brooks v. James, No. 2:102010-MBS, 2011 WL 4543994, at *2 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2011); Veney v. Astrue, 539 F. Supp. 2d
841, 846 (W.D. Va. 2008). In the absence of a proper objection, the court must “‘only satisfy

3 

itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.’” See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir.
2005) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s note); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 148–53 (1985).
In this case, Plaintiff’s Objections lack the specificity required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b) and the relevant case law. In his first objection, Plaintiff merely restates his
grievance of inadequate hygiene and cleaning supplies that he first made in his motion [compare
Dkt. No. 5 at 2–3 (listing items required by regulation) with Dkt. No. 39 at 1–2 (listing the same
items)]. Beyond these same grievances, Plaintiff does not explain why the Report’s conclusion
that Plaintiff has not shown his likely success on the merits was incorrect. In his second
objection, Plaintiff again does no more than restate claims previously made in his motion
[compare Dkt. No. 5 at 3–4 (describing past and potential future medical conditions) with Dkt.
No. 39 at 2 (describing the same medical conditions)]. Aside from restating these claims,
Plaintiff does not delineate any errors in the Report’s conclusion that he will not suffer
irreparable harm. Plaintiff’s third objection, arguing that he has not directed his complaint
against any medical personnel, does not respond to the content of the Report. The report notes
the apt attention of the medical staff in support of its conclusion that Plaintiff will not suffer
irreparable harm from lack of hygienic supplies. Because the objection is non-responsive, it does
not direct the court’s attention to any specific error in the Report.
In sum, each of Plaintiff’s objections has failed the specificity requirement of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Because Plaintiff failed to properly object to the Report with
specificity, the court need not conduct a de novo review and instead must “only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”

4 

Diamond, 416 F.3d at 316. The court does not find clear error and accepts the Report of the
Magistrate Judge.
CONCLUSION
Based on the aforementioned reasons and a thorough review of the Report and the record
in this case, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report. [Dkt. No. 31]. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Dkt. No. 5] in the abovecaptioned case is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
May 24, 2013

5