Sturkey v. Wilson et al

Filing 32

ORDER adopting 23 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying 11 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 8/2/2018.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
SPARTANBURG DIVISION
Willie Joe Sturkey,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Alan Wilson, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 7:18-1558-RMG

ORDER

Before the Court is the report and recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate Judge
(Dkt. No. 23) recommending that Plaintiff’s “motion for preliminary injunction” (Dkt. No. 11)
be denied. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R & R as the order of the Court
and denies Plaintiff’s “motion for preliminary injunction.”
I.

Background
Plaintiff Willie Joe Sturkey is a pro se litigant detained at the Union County Jail in South

Carolina. In June 2018, Plaintiff brought a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming
that jail officials and prosecutors in his pending state prosecution violated his First, Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Dkt. No. 1.) In July 2018, Plaintiff filed an “Order
Injunctive Relief” requesting “an Order of Relief prohibiting the defendant to discontinue
obstructing my due process and equal protection rights.” (Dkt. No. 11 at 2.)
II.

Legal Standard

A.

Review of R & R
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation

has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. See, e.g., Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court may “accept,

-1-

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where a petitioner has not objected to the R & R, the Court
reviews the R & R to “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. In the
absence of objections to the R & R, the Court need not give any explanation for adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s analysis and recommendation. See, e.g., Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199
(4th Cir. 1983) (“In the absence of objection . . . we do not believe that it requires any
explanation.”).
B.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction
A party seeking a preliminary injunction must make a “clear showing” that (1) he is

likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is likely to suffer imminent and irreparable harm absent
preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tip in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the
public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20-22 (2008); see also Metro.
Reg’l Info. Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 722 F.3d 591, 595 (4th Cir. 2013). This
is because interim relief is “an extraordinary remedy involving the exercise of a very farreaching power, which is to be applied only in the limited circumstances which clearly demand
it.” Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 811 (4th Cir. 1991) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted). Because there is a “fundamental policy against federal
interference with state criminal prosecutions,” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971), the
Court will grant a preliminary injunction that may interfere with state criminal proceedings only
where “extraordinary circumstances” present the possibility of irreparable harm. Kugler v.
Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975). The “cost, anxiety and inconvenience” of defending a state
prosecution do not alone constitute irreparable injury. Id.

-2-

III.

Discussion
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably addressed the issues raised by Plaintiff

and correctly concluded that the motion for preliminary injunction should be denied. First, the
Magistrate Judge was correct to identify Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for a preliminary
injunction. The Magistrate Judge also accurately determined that, liberally construing this pro se
litigant’s motion, Plaintiff does not demonstrate that a preliminary injunction is warranted.
Plaintiff’s ten complaints concerning the state court proceeding and detention center do not make
a “clear showing” of his likelihood of success on the merits or imminent and irreparable harm,
nor that the equities balance in his favor or that an injunction is in the public’s interest.
Likewise, Plaintiff’s motion does not suggest extraordinary circumstances of possible harm that
would warrant this Court’s issuance of an injunction that may affect Plaintiff’s pending state
court prosecution.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R & R as the order of the Court (Dkt.

No. 23) and DENIES Plaintiff’s “motion for preliminary injunction” (Dkt. No. 11).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel
United States District Court Judge
August 2, 2018
Charleston, South Carolina

-3-