Malik v. Sligh
| Decision Date | 28 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 2:11-cv-01064-RBH |
| Parties | Habeeb Abdul Malik, #231677, Plaintiff, v. James E. Sligh, Jr.; Jannita Gaston; Bernard McKie; Jon E. Ozmint; Bill Byars; Vaughn Jackson; Robert E. Ward; and Travis Reese, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
This matter is before the Court after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks.1 In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [Preliminary Injunction, Doc. # 15.]
This case was initiated on May 4, 2011, when Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint alleging a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"), alleges violations of his constitutional rights by the named Defendants, who Plaintiff claims are individuals responsible for conducting custody classification review hearings. Specifically, Plaintiff appears to allege the following:
• Defendants have violated his due process rights through "erroneous continued confinement" in a maximum security unit ("MSU") at Kirkland Correctional Institution because he was allegedly cleared of the charges that initially prompted his placement in MSU. [See Am. Compl., Doc. # 13, at 5, 7.]
• The policy guiding Defendants in their decision-making process is unconstitutional. [Id. at 6.]
• Plaintiff's confinement within MSU constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. [Id. at 6.]
• Plaintiff's due process rights were violated because of instances where he was either denied medical treatment or forced to endure erratic behavior from other inmates. [Id. at 11-12.]
Plaintiff seeks injunctive and/or declaratory relief with respect to his disciplinary conviction and the SCDC policies, as well as monetary damages.
On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Preliminary Injunction at issue seeking release from MSU at Kirkland until all claims at issue have been resolved. [Preliminary Injunction, Doc. # 15, at 1.] On September 27, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R recommending that the Court deny the requested Preliminary Injunction, to which Plaintiff filed timely objections.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. 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 R&R to which a specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the Court need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations.Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed specific objection, the Magistrate Judge's conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
This Court notes that both Plaintiff and the Magistrate applied the incorrect test for determining the appropriateness of a preliminary injunction.2 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that will be issued only upon a showing by a plaintiff of four requirements: (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits, (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. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. FEC, 575 F.3d 342, 346 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 130 S. Ct. 2371 (2010) ().3 Because of the extraordinary nature of injunctive relief, the SupremeCourt has admonished that interlocutory injunctions "may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Winter, S. Ct. 365 at 376.
Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing required for a preliminary injunction, as is his burden. As a threshold matter, because Plaintiff failed to apply the correct legal standard in his Motion for Preliminary Injunction, his original motion fails to demonstrate that each of the Winter elements, as articulated in Real Truth About Obama, Inc., is satisfied. Even if this Court were to construe Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and objections to the R&R as attempting to articulate the Winter elements, Plaintiff still fails to carry his burden.
Plaintiff's objections mostly rehash his initial arguments before the Magistrate or state the applicable law of the case. [See Objections, Doc. # 38, at 1-2 ()]; see also Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (). The vast majority of Plaintiff's objections do not meet the applicable standard set above as they contain little-to-no basis for the objections and contain little-to-no additional legal argumentbeyond what is found in Plaintiff's pleadings. To the extent this Court is able to glean specific and cognizable objections, it addresses them below.
First, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendants's failure to respond to his Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [Objections, Doc. # 38, at 9.] Any failure by Defendants to respond to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction is likely the fault of Plaintiff. The docket in this case shows that Plaintiff filed the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on June 27, 2011, with the response due by July 14, 2011. [Doc. # 15.] However, service was not perfected until August 17, 2011, a month after the response deadline and nearly two months after the Motion at issue was filed. [Doc. # 28.]4 Even if Defendants' silence could somehow be construed as agreement with the factual allegations in Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff would still bear the burden of establishing that he is entitled to injunctive relief - which Plaintiff does not do. See Robinson v. S.C. Dep't of Corrections, C.A. No. 4:10-157-HMH, 2011 WL 2416256, at *1(D.S.C. June 16, 2011) ( ).
Second, Plaintiff argues that the status quo to be preserved is "following the Constitution by the Defendants." [Objections, Doc. # 38, at 7.] The Court disagrees. Black's Law Dictionary defines status quo to mean "the existing state of things at any given date." Black's Law Dictionary 1264 (5th ed. 1979). Judicial precedent confirms that "[t]he status quo is the last uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy." Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Free Sewing Machine Co., 256 F.2d 806, 808 (7th Cir. 1958). Here, the last uncontested status was, and remains, that Plaintiff is confined within the Kirkland MSU. Accordingly, it is that status this Court should preserve in order to maintain the status quo. See In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litig., 333 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2003) ().
Third, Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate's conclusion that he is not likely to succeed on the merits is unfounded. An examination of Plaintiff's pleadings make clear that he is not likely to succeed. As the Magistrate correctly noted, federal courts are required to accord great consideration to a correctional system's need to maintain order, discipline, and control. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558-562 (1974). Further, there is no constitutional right for a state prisoner or federal prisoner to be housed in a particular institution, at a particular custody level, or in a particular portion or unit of a correctional institution. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-46 (1983); Ange v. Paderick, 521 F.2d 1066, 1068-69 (4th Cir. 1975). In other words, the placement and assignment of inmates into particular institutions or units by state or federalcorrections departments are discretionary functions and are not subject to review unless state or federal law places limitations on official discretion. Hayes v. Thompson, 726 F.2d 1015, 1016-1017 & n.1 (4th Cir.1984) (collecting cases). The cases cited by Plaintiff do not contradict these holdings.
Plaintiff attempts to rely on Gaston v. Taylor, 946 F.2d 340, 343 (4th Cir. 1991), and its holding that "[i]f a prisoner's term of imprisonment can be shortened or modified by rights conveyed to him under state law, those rights cannot be denied without due process." In spite of this citation, Plaintiff does nothing to show he was denied due process.5 In his Complaint, Plaintiff makes clear that he had the opportunity to challenge his confinement in MSU on several occasions. [Am. Compl., Doc. #13, at 5-7.] Pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Thomas, C.A. No.: 4:15-cv-2132-PMD-TER
...restates the arguments in the petition. Such statements do not constitute cognizable objections. See Malik v. Sligh, No. 2:11-cv-1064-RBH, 2011 WL 6817750, at *2 (D.S.C. Dec. 28, 2011) (rejecting portions of plaintiff's objections that rehashed his initial arguments before the magistrate or......