United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
CAGER A. MALEEAH, Plaintiff,
PA DARCY, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Christopher L. Ray, United States Magistrate Judge Southern
District of Georgia
denial of medical care case, plaintiff complains that
defendants' acts and omissions caused him harm, including
hospitalization for a life-threatening infection, the
amputation of a toe and excision of infected bones and tissue
in his foot, and ongoing balance problems, nerve pain, and
discomfort, which may never fade. See docs. 1 &
5; see doc. 14 (authorizing service of the Complaint
on P.A. Darcy and Nurses Grant, Tyler, Green, and Anderson).
Defendant Nurse Anderson, he contends, refused to give him
his prescribed medication on two occasions after he returned
from the hospital to the prison. Doc. 5 at 22; see
doc. 1-2 at 16 (copy of August 2016 grievance). He thus seeks
an Order enjoining defendants from “interfering with,
and denying [his] medical procedures/treatment” and
ordering defendants to “facilitate immediately, the
process for plaintiff to receive necessary medical
treatment.” Doc. 5 at 1-2. Defendants oppose. Doc. 28.
entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction,  a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a
substantial likelihood of ultimate success on the merits; (2)
that a restraining order or injunction is necessary to
prevent irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury
outweighs the harm that the restraining order or injunction
would inflict on the other party; and (4) that the
restraining order or injunction would not be adverse to the
public interest. Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v.
Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). An
“injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not
to be granted unless the movant clearly established the
‘burden of persuasion' as to the four
requisites.” Horton v. City of Augustine, 272
F.3d 1318, 1326 (11th Cir. 2001).
as defendants note, plaintiff has attached documents showing
that his last grievance alleging less-than fully adequate
care was lodged nearly a year before filing this action. Doc.
1-2 at 23-25, cited in doc. 28 at 4. Indeed, his condition
has stabilized since the infection ravaged him in May 2016.
See docs. 1 & 5. That his condition has not
improved to his satisfaction, or to the point he would be at
but-for defendants' alleged (in)actions, doc. 5 at 23-24,
does not manufacture any threat of serious or imminent harm.
Aside from his worries that a repeat of the events of the
Complaint - the failures that led to his infection lingering,
untreated, until it reached life-threatening magnitude - will
occur absent Court intervention, plaintiff does not allege
that defendants have continued to deny or offered less than
adequate medical care. See Id. In other words,
Maleeah shows no present and substantial risk of
imminent harm which compels enjoinment. Northeastern Fla.
Chapter of Ass'n of General Contractors of Am. v. City of
Jacksonville. Fla., 896 F.2d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 1990)
(to satisfy the irreparable injury requirement, a plaintiff
must show the threat of injury is “neither remote nor
speculative, but actual and imminent.”).
plaintiff has not met his burden of persuasion on all four
requisites for obtaining injunctive relief, his motion should
be DENIED without prejudice to refiling,
should conditions warranting such relief later arise. This
Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the
district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3.
Within 14 days of service, any party may file written
objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on
all parties. The document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 Fed.Appx. 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F. App'x
542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 If a plaintiff succeeds in making such
a showing, then “the court may grant injunctive relief,
but the relief must be no broader than necessary to remedy
the constitutional violation.” Newman v. State of
Ala., 683 F.2d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir. 1982). Accordingly,
where there is a constitutional violation in the prison
context, courts traditionally are reluctant to interfere with
prison administration and discipline, unless there is a clear
abuse of discretion. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416
U.S. 396, 404-05 (1974) (“Traditionally, federal courts
have adopted a broad hands-off attitude toward problems of
prison administration [because] . . . courts are ill equipped
to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison
administration and reform.”), overruled on other
grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989). In
such cases, “[d]eference to prison authorities is
especially appropriate.” Newman, 683 F.2d at
1320-21 (reversing district court's ...