1

 As the Magistrate Judge notes, the Court has dismissed the claims against Defendants

Wynder, Kneiss, Demning, and Burnett. (Rec. Doc. 9). This case is proceeding as against the

two remaining named Defendants, C.O. Flick and Deputy Superintendent McGrady, both of

which are prison staff members at SCI-Dallas. (Rep. & Rec. at 1 n.1). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD SIMMONS, : No. 4:CV-04-2787

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Jones)

:

v. : (Magistrate Judge Blewitt)

:

JAMES T. WYNDER, ET AL., :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

November 21, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

The plaintiff, Richard Simmons (“Plaintiff” or “Simmons”), an inmate

incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Dallas, Pennsylvania (“SCIDallas”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (“§ 1983") by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Pennsylvania on December 23, 2004.1

 (See Rec. Doc. 1). 

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunction and for a Temporary Restraining Order

(“TRO”) on August 22, 2005, which has been fully briefed, and is therefore ripe

Case 4:04-cv-02787-JEJ Document 85 Filed 11/21/05 Page 1 of 4
2

for disposition.

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for preliminary review. 

On September 28, 2005, Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a report and

recommendation within which he concluded that Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO and

Preliminary Injunction should be denied and that the case be remanded for further

proceedings. (See Rep. & Rec. at 16). 

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report were due by October 16, 2005

and to date none have been filed. This matter is now ripe for disposition. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When no objections are made to a magistrate’s report, the district court is

not statutorily required to review a magistrate judge’s report before accepting it. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). According to the Third Circuit,

however, “the better practice is to afford some level of review to dispositive legal

issues raised by the report.” Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.

1987). When a district court accepts a magistrate judge’s report, the report

becomes the judgment of the court. Id. 

DISCUSSION:

Our review of this case confirms Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s determinations

and well-reasoned analysis, and while we have not been presented with any reason

Case 4:04-cv-02787-JEJ Document 85 Filed 11/21/05 Page 2 of 4
3

to revisit them, we do reiterate the salient aspects of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 

We initially note that as the Magistrate Judge explained in detail, the

applicable TRO standard is the same as that for a preliminary injunction, which

requires that a plaintiff demonstrate the following: (1) a likelihood of success on

the merits; (2) the probability of irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; (3)

that granting injunctive relief will not result in even greater harm to the other party;

and (4) that granting injunctive relief will be in the public interest. Bieros v.

Nicola, 857 F.Supp. 445, 446 (E.D. Pa. 1994); Rep. & Rec. at 6. Additionally,

with regard to injunctive relief, the Supreme Court has instructed that injunctions

may issue in only exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. Parenti v.

Whinston, 347 F.Supp. 471, 472 (E.D. Pa. 1972) (citing Miller v. Standard Nut

Margarin Co., 284 U.S. 498 (1932)). 

The Magistrate Judge accurately submits that Plaintiff has not made any

retaliation claims against the named Defendants, he has failed to allege an actual

injury with respect to his claim that he is being denied access to the court, and he

has not substantiated any of his claims regarding his belief that his life is in danger. 

(Rep. & Rec. at 8). An injunction is not warranted as Plaintiff has not

demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits of his instant claims, or that

Case 4:04-cv-02787-JEJ Document 85 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 4
2

 Additionally, as the Magistrate Judge states, Plaintiff’s own exhibits demonstrate that

he has not fully exhausted his claim concerning his placement in the restrictive housing unit

(“RHU”). (Rep. & Rec. at 10). 

4

he will suffer irreparable harm.2 

Our review of this case confirms Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s determinations

and we have not been presented with any reason to revisit them. Because we find

no error in Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s report and recommendation and because no

objections have been filed, we will adopt it as our own. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 74) is

adopted in its entirety. 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction (doc. 48) is

DENIED.

3. The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for further

proceedings, including the disposition of any pending motions.

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02787-JEJ Document 85 Filed 11/21/05 Page 4 of 4