United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
BENJAMIN W. CHEESBRO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Emergency Temporary Restraining Order, Ex Parte Motion for an
Emergency Hearing on his Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order, and Ex Parte Motion to Issue Subpoenas. Docs. 4, 8, 9.
Upon review, I RECOMMEND the Court
DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency
Temporary Restraining Order. I DENY
Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motions.
claims stem from divorce proceedings in Camden County
Superior Court, which appear to be ongoing at this time. Doc.
1. In his Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiff
asserts that Defendants Harrison and Fortier-his spouse's
attorneys in in the divorce proceedings-have engaged in fraud
and have fabricated evidence in those proceedings, and that
Defendant Harrison is not licensed to practice law in
Georgia. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant
Scarlett-the judge presiding over the divorce proceedings-has
issued void orders that have negatively impacted Plaintiff.
Plaintiff contends he has been threatened with incarceration
“due to a fraudulently obtained debt” he cannot
pay, which appears to be an amount that Plaintiff was ordered
to pay as a child support obligation. Doc. 4 at 1-5.
Plaintiff further contends that “Defendants'
threatened unlawful actions are currently being performed and
additional unlawful actions are set to begin September 20,
2019, ” though Plaintiff does not state what will occur
on September 20, 2019. As relief, Plaintiff requests in his
Motion that the Court issue an order (1) enjoining Defendant
Harrison from the “continued unlicensed practice of law
against the Plaintiff”; (2) preventing Defendants from
“enforcing the void order of incarceration against the
Plaintiff”; (3) preventing “any other illegal and
void orders obtained by Ms. Harrison from being enforced upon
the Plaintiff”; and (4) any other relief the Court
deems just. Id. at 8.
entitled to a temporary restraining order, the movant must
show: (1) a substantial likelihood of ultimate success on the
merits; (2) an injunction or protective order is necessary to
prevent irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury
outweighs the harm the injunction or protective order would
inflict on the non-movant; and (4) the injunction or
protective order would not be adverse to the public interest.
Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223,
1225-26 (11th Cir. 2005). In this Circuit, 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); McDonald's Corp. v.
Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998)
has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits of his Motion or in his underlying cause of action.
This Court cannot provide the injunctive relief Plaintiff
requests. See Jones v. Warren, 1:11-CV-3974, 2012 WL
1682264, at *3 (N.D.Ga. Apr. 23, 2012) (finding, in a case
involving state court divorce proceedings, that
“[f]ederal courts may not grant an injunction to stay
in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of
Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or
to protect or effectuate its judgments. . . . [A] federal
court injunction of state litigation is to be the exception,
not the rule, and [t]he United States Supreme Court has
admonished lower federal courts to hesitate to enjoin state
court proceedings, holding that [a]ny doubts as to the
propriety of a federal injunction against state court
proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the
state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to finally
determine the controversy.”) (internal citations
omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL
1677294 (N.D.Ga. May 11, 2012)); see also Blough v.
Nazaretian, 704 Fed.Appx. 820 (11th Cir. 2017)
(dismissal of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint proper in case
involving federal and state court judges concerning
underlying state court divorce proceedings). Thus, I
RECOMMEND the Court DENY
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Doc.
4. As a consequence, I DENY Plaintiff's
Motion for Hearing on his Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order. Doc. 8.
the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to
Issue Subpoenas. Doc. 9. Plaintiff asks this Court to
authorize the issuance of subpoenas against two named
Defendants and a third party, Julia Morgan Hill, for the
production of documents. Plaintiff filed his Complaint on
September 9, 2019 and purports to have served the named
Defendants. Docs. 1, 5, 6, 7. Defendants' responses to
the Complaint are not due until September 30 and October 2,
2019. Plaintiff's request involves discovery matters, and
that process need not begin until after Defendants file their
Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to
this Report and Recommendation to file specific written
objections within 14 days of the date on which this Report
and Recommendation is entered. Any objections asserting that
the Magistrate Judge failed to address any contention raised
in the Complaint must also be included. Failure to do so will
bar any later challenge or review of the factual findings or
legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985). A copy of the objections must be served upon all
other parties to the action.
receipt of Objections meeting the specificity requirement set
out above, a United States District Judge will make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report, proposed
findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and
may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.
Objections not meeting the specificity requirement set out
above will not be considered by a District Judge. A party may
not appeal a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation
directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final
judgment entered by or at the direction of a District Judge.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to
serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation upon
ORDERED and REPORTED ...