1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Arkmael Ray Sales,

Plaintiff

 v.

Mr. K. Smith, et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-00239

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge Abel

Report and Recommendation

This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on plaintiff Arkmael Ray Sales’ June 7,

2012 motion for the issuance of an injunction (doc. 45) and June 11, 2012 supplemental

motion for injunctive relief (doc. 46).

Plaintiff’s motions. In his June 7, 2012 motion plaintiff states he was placed in the

D-unit based on his medical condition, but he was unable to access the main prison law

library because of his medical restrictions. Plaintiff sought and was granted permission

to use the law library in the B-1 medical unit, but defendant Smith refused to honor the

order providing plaintiff access to it. Plaintiff maintains that defendant Smith began

personally attacking and harassing him. Plaintiff complained about the problems he

was having accessing various departments, so he was moved back to the B-1 medical

unit. When Smith learned of the transfer, he had plaintiff moved back to the D-unit. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00239-ALM-MRA Doc #: 51 Filed: 06/22/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

In December 2011, plaintiff was transferred to the Correctional Medical Center in

order to have an ultrasound of his heart. Although plaintiff has a security level of 2, he

was placed in the maximum security area. The ultrasound confirmed that plaintiff had

an aneurysm. He was placed on the B-1 medical unit again, but Smith continues to try

to have him moved and to harass plaintiff. 

In his June 11, 2012 supplemental motion, plaintiff alleges additional incidents of

harassment by defendant Smith. 

Discussion. A district court must assess four factors in deciding whether to issue

a preliminary injunction: “(1) whether the plaintiff has established a substantial

likelihood or probability of success on the merits; (2) whether there is a threat of

irreparable harm to the plaintiff; (3) whether issuance of the injunction would cause

substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by

granting injunctive relief.” Nightclubs, Inc. v. City of Paducah, 202 F.3d 884, 888 (6th Cir.

2000). “The four considerations applicable to preliminary injunction decisions are

factors to be balanced, not prerequisites that must be met.” Mich. Bell Tel. Co. v. Engler,

257 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 2001).

Plaintiff has not established a substantial likelihood or probability of success on

the merits or that he will suffer irreparable harm if an injunction is not issued because

plaintiff has not articulated with specificity the relief that he seeks or the harm he faces. 

It is simply not clear what plaintiff is requesting the Court to do. Additionally, plaintiff

has provided no evidence indicating that failure to issue the injunction would cause

Case: 2:11-cv-00239-ALM-MRA Doc #: 51 Filed: 06/22/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

substantial harm to others or whether the public interest would be served by granting

injunctive relief. As a result, plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief should be denied.

As a result, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that plaintiff Arkmael Ray

Sales’ June 7, 2012 motion for the issuance of an injunction (doc. 45) and June 11, 2012

supplemental motion for injunctive relief (doc. 46) be DENIED.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within

fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the

Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof

in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b),

Fed. R. Civ. P.

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District

Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981);

United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,

380 (6th Cir. 1995). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of issues not

raised in those objections is waived. Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991).

s/ Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:11-cv-00239-ALM-MRA Doc #: 51 Filed: 06/22/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>