Hause v. Miles et al

Filing 79

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; denying 47 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 51 Motion for TRO. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 12/11/2013.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

STEPHEN MARK HAUSE,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

vs.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

DR. MILES, LCDC Physician; MAJOR
JONES, LCDC Supt.; THE LEXINGTON
COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, and
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, in their
individual and official capacities,

No. 9: 13-cv-1 271-RMG-BM
ORDER

)

Defendants.

)
)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R & R) of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 63) recommending that Plaintiffs motions for preliminary injunction
be denied. For the reasons set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R & R. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction (Dkt. Nos. 47, 51) are DENIED.
Backeround
Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at Lexington County Detention Center (LCDC).' He filed
this action alleging claims against LCDC pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act. (Dkt. No. I.) Plaintiff has filed two motions for preliminary injunction. In the
first, he claims that he is being denied access to a law library and adequate legal research
materials and seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to provide him with access to a legally
adequate law library. (Dkt. No. 47.) In the second, Plaintiff seeks an order that requiring the
1 Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at LCDC when he filed this action in May of2013.
(Dkt. No.1 at 2.) He was subsequently released in early June of2013 (see Dkt. No. 20) and was
again confined on August 1,2013. (Dkt. No. 40 at 1.)

1

Defendant to provide him with treatment by specialists for his alleged medical problems. (Dkt.
No. 51.) Specifically, Plaintiff wants an order requiring treatment by a "Neurologist, Pain
Specialist, and Orthopedic Surgeon." (ld. at 2.) The Defendants filed responses. 2 (Dkt. Nos. 52,
53, 58, 59.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs motions be denied because he
has not met the required showing under Winter v. Natural Res. De! Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7
(2008). (Dkt. No. 63.) Petitioner has filed objections. (Dkt. No. 69.)

Lela' Standard
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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261,270-71 (1976). The Court may "accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the R & R or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416 F 3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
n[P]reliminary huunctions are extraordinary remedies involving the exercise of very
far-reaching power to be granted only sparingly and in limited circumstances." MicroStrategy

2 Apparently, Petitioner did not receive copies of all of these responses in a timely
manner, due to the fact that some of the Defendants had a scrivener's error in their records
transposing two digits of Petitioner's Post Office Box. (Dkt. No. 74; Dkt. No. 69 at 1-3.)
Defendants have since served these documents at the proper address. (Dkt. No. 74.) Petitioner
did, however, receive a copy of the Magistrate Judge's R & R and was able to timely file
objections to the R & R (see Dkt. No. 69), and this Court will consider the motions de novo.
Thus, Petitioner has not been prejudiced by the late receipt of Defendant's responses.

2

Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335,339 (4th Cir 2001) (internal quotations and citation
omitted). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 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. De! Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Plaintiff must show each ofthe four Winter
factors to obtain a preliminary injunction. Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307,320-21 (4th Cir.
2013).

Discussion
The Court has reviewed the pleadings, the parties' briefing, and the R & R, and concludes
that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the relevant law to the operative facts in this matter.
Plaintiff has not clearly shown that he us likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. With
regard to Plaintiff's first motion, Mr. Hause is aware that short-term detention centers are not
constitutionally required to have law libraries. See Hause v. Vaught, 993 F.2d 1079, 1084-85
(4th Cir. 1993) (rejecting Ms. Hause's claims based on the fact that he lacked access to a law
library as a pretrial detainee at a county detention center).
With regard to his second motion, Mr. Hause's filings show that he is receiving medical
care. (See Dkt. Nos. 51, 51-1.) His brief and his objections to the R & R consist of conclusory
assertions that he disagrees with the medical providers treating him at LCDC. (See id.; Dkt. No.
69.) He has not put forward evidence that the treatment he seeks is necessary or that the care he
is receiving is constitutionally inadequate; he simply asserts that it is. (See Dkt. Nos. 51,69.)

3

The Court, therefore, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,
(Dkt. No. 63), as the order of this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions for preliminary
injunction (Dkt. Nos. 47, 51) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

December _(_J,2013
Charleston, South Carolina

4