Keystone v. Hinkle, et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 58 ; Objections 61 are OVERRULED; denying 33 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 17 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on 10/18/2016. (tvt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
RANDALL J. KEYSTONE,
G.M. HINKLE, et al.,
Civil Action No. 7:15cv00553
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
By: Norman K. Moon
United States District Judge
Randall J. Keystone, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants subjected him to cruel and unusual
living conditions and retaliated against him.
Keystone also filed two motions seeking
preliminary injunctive relief. Preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that courts
should apply sparingly. See Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 811
(4th Cir. 1991). As a preliminary injunction temporarily affords an extraordinary remedy prior
to trial that can be granted permanently after trial, the party seeking the preliminary injunction
must demonstrate: (1) by a “clear showing,” that he is likely to succeed on the merits at trial; (2)
that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the
balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The party seeking relief must show that
the irreparable harm he faces in the absence of relief is “neither remote nor speculative, but
actual and imminent.” Direx Israel, Ltd., 952 F.2d at 812. “The possibility that adequate
compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date . . . weighs heavily against
a claim of irreparable harm.” Va. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Kreps, 444 F.
Supp. 1167, 1182 (W.D. Va. 1978) (quoting Va. Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n. v. Fed. Power
Comm’n, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (1958)).
I referred Keystone’s motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief to United States
Magistrate Judge Pamela M. Sargent for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). She held a hearing and filed a report, finding no basis for granting Keystone’s
request for preliminary injunctive relief and recommending that his motions be denied.
Specifically, she found that Keystone is not likely to succeed on the merits of his claims and he
has not shown that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief or
that the defendants are the appropriate people to provide the preliminary relief Keystone seeks.
Keystone filed objections to the report. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the
objections thereto, and pertinent portions of the record de novo in accordance with § 636(b)(1),
the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Keystone’s objections to
the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 61) are OVERRULED; the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 58) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and Keystone’s
motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Docket Nos. 17 and 33) are DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the parties.
ENTER: This _____ day of October, 2016.
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?