CHAVIS v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS et al, No. 1:2015cv00078 - Document 50 (M.D.N.C. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 01/25/2016. For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Docket Entry 26 ) be DENIED.(Taylor, Abby)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CHAVIS v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS et al Doc. 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DUSTY ANDRE!í CHAVIS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, et al., Defendants. 1:15CV78 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This mattet is before the Cout upon motion of Plaintiff Dusty ndrew Chavis for a preliminary injunction. (Docket Entry 26.) Defendants Southetn Health Partners ("SHP"), Lt. Patket, and Setgeant Smith have filed tesponses. pocket Enuies 28,29.) Fot the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recoÍunends that this motion be denied. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a pro se ptisonet housed at the Hoke County Detention Centet, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1983 alleging that Defendants failed to ptovide adequate medical care for Plaintiff in violation of his constitutional dghts. 2; Suppl. to Compl., Docket Entry (See Complaint, Docket Entty 7.) In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks a "Pteliminary Injunction otdering all defendants to cease and desist any and all forms of delibetate acts of indiffctcncc and or acts of malicc ditcctcd at thc Plaintiff in rcsponsc to PlaintifPs (1983) suit ot otherwise face futher legal actìon in this mattet." (Pl.'s Mot. at 3-4, Docket Entry 26.) Plaintiff also "request that the court order the defendants to ptovide adequate medical cate to I Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff and or tespond to any condition in a teasonable mannet or otherwise face further legal action on the m^tter." (Id. at 4.) In its tesponse, SHP asserts, intet alia, that Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts in the Complaint nor provided affidavits which would .w^rtaît granting his motion. (SHP's Resp. Br., Docket Entry28.) Defendants Lt. Patker and Setgeant Smith also responded, arguing that Plaintiff has not shown he is entitled to a pteliminary injunction because of his failute to show aclear likelihood of success on the medts. (Defs.' Br., DocketBnty 29.) DISCUSSION A paty seeking a pteliminary injunction must establish all four of the following elements: (1) he is likely to succeed on the metits; Q) h, is likely to suffet ireparable harm in the absence of pteliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public intetest. IYinter u. 20 Q008); The Real u. Fed. Election Trwth Aboat Obama, Inc. Natøral Resoarce¡ Defense Coancil, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, Comm'n,575 F'.3d 342, 346-47 (4th Ctt. 2009), ovettuling Blackwelder Famitøre Co. of Statesuille u. Seilþ Mfg. C0.,550 F.2d 189 (4th Ck. 1,977).1 A party must make a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. IYinter,555 U.S. at 20; RealTruth,575 F.3d at 345-46. Similatly, he must make a clear showing that he is likely to be kreparably harmed absent injunctive relief. IT/inter,555 U.S. at 20-22; Real Truth,575 F.3d at 347. Only then does the court consider whethet the 1 'I'he odginal decision tn Real Trath was vacated by the Supteme Coutt for furthet consideration in light of Citiqgns United a. Fed. Election Conm'n,558 U.S. 31,0 Q01,0). However, the Fouth Circuit reissued its opinion on Parts I and II of its eadier opinion in the case, 575 F.3d at 345-47 , stating the facts and articulating the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction, before remanding it to the district court for consideration in light of Ciilq,ens United. See The Real Traîb AbouT Obama, Inc. u. Fed. Ekction Corztm'n,607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010). 2 balance of equities tips in the favot of the patty seeking the injunction. See RealTrath,575 F.3d at 346-47. Finally, the court must pay patticulat regard to the impact of the exttaordinary relief of an injunction upon the public intetest. RtalTruth,575 F.3d 555 U.S. ^t 23-24). Injunctive relief, such as the issuanc e ^t347 (quoting ll/iater, of a pteliminary injunction, is an extraordinary remedy that may be awatded only upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. Maqørek u. Arrnstrong,520 U.S. 968,972 (1,997); see also MinoStrategy Inc. u. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335, 339 (4th Cir. 2001) (citation and quotation omitted) (a pteliminary injunction is an "extraotdrnaq, temedþ] involving the exetcise of very far-reaching power to be granted only spatingly and in limited citcumstances"). Hete, Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing for pteliminary injunctive telief. ,{.t this point in the ptoceedings Plaintiff has not made succeed on the merits. IVinter, 444 U.S. at 22. He ^ "cleat showing" that he is likely to has metely stated that Defendant provided inadequate medical cate to him, thus violating his constitutional tights, and that Defendants should stop deliberate acts of indiffetence against Plaintiff. App'* 887 (4th Cu. 201,3) (in the context see aho De'lonta u. 524 F. of ptisonet medical care, the Constitution tequires only that ptisonets receive adequate medical care; tteatment); See Goodman u. Johruson, ^ prisonet is not guaranteed his choice of Johnson,708 F.3d 520, 526 (4th Cir. 201,3) ("[A] prisonet does not enjoy a constitutional tight to the treatment of his ot het choice, the treatment a ptison facility does ptovide must nevertheless be adequate Kìng u. United States,536 to addtess the ptisonet's serious medical need."); F. App'* 358,361, (4th Cir. 2013) (citation and quotation omitted) (concluding that inadequate treatment constituting delibetate indifference to a setious medical need means that "the treatment a ptisonet teceives must be so grossly incompetent, a J inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intoletable to fundamental fafuness."). Here, Plaintiff has not presented evidence of undisputed delibetate indiffetence, thus Plaintiff has not made a cIear. showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to show that he will suffet irrepatable harm if an injunction is not issued. \)Øhile Plaintiff disagrees wrth the medical tretment he has teceíved, he has failed to allege any specific facts to demonsttatethat he is likely to suffetirepatable harm if Plaintiff this Cout fails to issue an otder ditecting Defendants to provide adequate care to s satisfaction. Furthet, Plaintiff has not shown that the balance of equities tips in his favor. Coutts have long recognized that a prisoner has no constitutional dght to teceive a patticvlat tretment ot be evaluated by a specialist just because he believes such De'lonta Johnson,708 F.3d u. care is necessaq/. at526. The balance of equities in this situation does not favor Plaintiff. Finally, Plaintiff has not shown that an injunction is in the public intetest. This Coutt cannot conclude that the public intetest would be served by court involvement in medical cate provided to inmates. 1,2-3362, 2013 WL See e.g.,II/1er u. Conmed Healthcare Managemenl,Inc., Civil 1,05341,, r{ction No. GLR- at *3 (D. Md. Jan. 8, 201.3) (where prisonet alleged delibetate indiffetence to medical needs, coutt finds "disagreement ovet medical care does not implicate a claim of constitutional magnitude" and that "the public intetest would not be served by ordedng injunctive relief'). Accordingly, this Coutt recommends that PlaintifPs motion fot a preliminary injunction be denied. 4 CONCLUSION Fot the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffls motion for a Pteliminary Injunction pocket Entry 26)be DENIED. L MrÉúnåêJrrdge January 25,2016 Dwham, Noth Carohna 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
