Lott v. Tross et al, No. 2:2016cv01586 - Document 47 (D.S.C. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION adopting 44 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker; denying 11 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order; denying 21 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/27/2017.(ssam, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lott v. Tross et al Doc. 47 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION Mark Tillman Lott, Case No 2:16-cv-01586-RMG ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER AND OPINION ) Dr. Rozanna Tross, Psy, Joshua Tucker, Cynathia Helff, Kimberly Poholchuk, Holly Scaturo, Shelia Lindsey, Versie Bellamy, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) Mark Tillman Lott ("Plaintiff'), is currently in the custody of the Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program ("SVPTP") of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health, having been civilly committed as a sexually violent predator under the South Carolina Sexually Violent Predator Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-10 through § 44-48-] 70. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action in May 2016, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him and violated his First Amendment rights. (Dkt. No. 1.) This Court construes Plaintiffs action to be filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 44) to deny Plaintiffs First and Second Motions for a temporary restraining order. (Dkt Nos. 11,21.) For the reasons outlined in the R. & R., Plaintiff has not complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding temporary restraining orders, so this Court considers Plaintiffs First and Second Motions to seek preliminary injunctions. (Dkt. No. 44 at ] -2.) -1- Dockets.Justia.com No objections to the R. & R. have been filed. While this Court will conduct a de novo review of any portion of the R. & R. to which a specific objection is made, it appears Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the Magistrate absent objection by any party. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. ] 40 (1985). This Court's review of the record indicates that the R. & R. accurately analyzes the facts of this case and the applicable law. Plaintiff has not established the elements required to obtain a preliminary injunction, including (l) 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. Winter v. Nat. Res. Del Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7,24 (2008). Accordingly, this Court adopts the R. & R. as the Order of this Court. Plaintiff's First and Second Motions for a preliminary injunction are DENIED. (Dkt. Nos. 11,21.) AND IT IS SO ORDERED. n_ United States District Court Judge February 7,2017 Charleston, South Carolina -2-
]]>
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.
