Matthews v. Civic Core et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Docket Entry No. 6) be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 2/15/2017. (xc: Pro se party by regular mail)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CORE CIVIC, et al.
TO: Honorable Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
By Order entered December 20, 2016 (Docket Entry No. 3), the Court referred this pro se
and in forma pauperis prisoner civil rights action to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
the Local Rules of Court.
Mack Matthews (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate confined at the South Central Correctional Center
(“SCCC”) in Clifton, Tennessee. He sues five Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his
constitutional rights are being violated at the SCCC. Specifically, he alleges that he has been denied
constitutionally adequate medical care.1 Process has only recently been issued to Defendants.
Presently pending is Plaintiff’s motion for a restraining order and preliminary injunction. See
Docket Entry No. 6. In a one page motion, he asserts that he has suffered “discriminatory behavior
Although Plaintiff made other allegations in his complaint, his claims based upon these
allegations were dismissed upon initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See Docket Entry
No. 3 at 2-3.
by staff” after filing his compliant and seeks an order prohibiting any punishment against him and
directing that he be moved. Id.
Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are considered preventive,
prohibitory, or protective measures taken pending resolution on the merits, see Clemons v. Board
of Educ., 228 F.2d 853, 856 (6th Cir. 1956), and are considered extraordinary relief. Detroit
Newspaper Publishers Ass’n v. Detroit Typographical Union No. 18, Int’l Typographical Union, 471
F.2d 872, 876 (6th Cir. 1972). Plaintiff, as the moving party, has the burden of proving that the
circumstances “clearly demand” a preliminary injunction. Overstreet v. Lexington–Fayette Urban
Cnty. Gov't, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff has not met this burden, and his motion should be denied. Initially, he has not
supported his motion with any type of affirmative evidence. Further, he has not shown that any
factors weigh in favor of his request for preliminary injunctive relief. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc.
v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 441, 94 S.Ct. 1113, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974). McNeilly v. Land, 684 F.3d
611, 615 (6th Cir. 2012); Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d. 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000); Six Clinics
Holding Corp., II v. CAFCOMP Systems, 119 F.3d 393, 401 (6th Cir. 1997) Parker v. U.S. Dep’t
of Agric. 879 F.2d. 1362, 1367 (6th Cir. 1989); Mason Cnty Med. Assocs. v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256,
261 (6th Cir. 1977). At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff's likelihood of success on his claims
is no greater than that of Defendants. Plaintiff has also not shown that he will suffer irreparable
harm if the injunctive relief he requests is not granted and has not shown that a public interest would
be advanced by the requested relief. See National Hockey League Players Ass'n v. Plymouth
Whalers Hockey Club, 372 F.3d 712, 720 n.4 (6th Cir. 2003). Absent extraordinary and urgently
compelling reasons, the Court will not intervene in matters such as the day-to-day operations in a
correctional facility. Such reasons have not been shown by Plaintiff.
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction (Docket Entry No. 6) be DENIED.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of
Court within fourteen (14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation and must state with
particularity the specific portions of this Report and Recommendation to which objection is made.
Failure to file written objections within the specified time can be deemed a waiver of the right to
appeal the District Court's Order regarding the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.
BARBARA D. HOLMES
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?