IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARREN L. GREEN, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 05-00702-WS-B

SHERIFF GROVER SMITH, et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an Alabama prison inmate incarcerated in the

Monroe County Jail, has brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts that while housed at

Escambia County Jail, the jail officials failed to provide him

with appropriate medical care. Plaintiff has also filed a Motion

for Injunction (Doc. 2). In his motion, which the Court is

treating as a request for a temporary restraining order,

Plaintiff seeks an order directing the Monroe County jail

officials to take him to the doctor, and to fill his prescription

for high blood pressure medication. Plaintiff’s motion has been

referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for a recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.2 and the

standing order of general reference. Based upon a review of

Plaintiff’s motion and complaint, it is recommended that

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Injunction be DENIED.

Case 1:05-cv-00702-WS-B Document 8 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 5
2

In order to prevail on a request for a temporary restraining

order, Plaintiff must show: (1)a substantial likelihood that he

will ultimately prevail on the merits; (2) that he will suffer

irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (3) that the

threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the

proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that

the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public

interest. Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (llth Cir. 2002);

Zardui-Quinatana v. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213, 1216 (llth Cir.

1985). A temporary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic

remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly carries the

burden of persuasion as to the four requisites. Id. at 1216;

McDonald’s Corp. V. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (llth Cir.

1988). It is mandatory that all four factors are satisfied. 

United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (llth Cir.

1983). Moreover, injunctive relief will not issue unless the

complained of conduct is imminent and no other relief or

compensation is available. Cunningham v. Adams, 808 F.2d 815,

821 (llth Cir. 1987).

In the case sub judice, Plaintiff has failed to show that

there is a substantial likelihood that he will ultimately prevail

on the merits of this action, nor has Plaintiff established that

he will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues. 

In fact, in his one page motion, Plaintiff does not even allege

Case 1:05-cv-00702-WS-B Document 8 Filed 08/08/06 Page 2 of 5
3

that he has actually requested medical attention. Additionally,

Plaintiff provides no facts which suggest that he will suffer

irreparable harm, or that he is in imminent danger.

Interestingly, in a letter to the Court, filed nearly two months

after his request for an injunction (Doc. 4), Plaintiff makes no

mention of the need for medical attention. 

Because Plaintiff has failed to establish the prerequisites

needed to show that a temporary restraining order should be

issued, it is recommend that his motion be DENIED.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

DONE this 8th day of August 2006.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-00702-WS-B Document 8 Filed 08/08/06 Page 3 of 5
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or

anything in it must, within ten days of the date of service of

this document, file specific written objections with the clerk of

court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo determination by the

district judge of anything in the recommendation and will bar an

attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the magistrate

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d

736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). The procedure for challenging the

findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out

in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides,

in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days after being served with

a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time

is established by order. The statement of objection

shall specify those portions of the recommendation to

which objection is made and the basis for the

objection. The objecting party shall submit to the

district judge, at the time of filing the objection, a

brief setting forth the party’s arguments that the

magistrate judge’s recommendation should be reviewed de

novo and a different disposition made. It is

insufficient to submit only a copy of the original

brief submitted to the magistrate judge, although a

copy of the original brief may be submitted or referred

to and incorporated into the brief in support of the

objection. Failure to submit a brief in support of the

objection may be deemed an abandonment of the

objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can

be appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10)

days of being served with a copy of the statement of objection. 

Case 1:05-cv-00702-WS-B Document 8 Filed 08/08/06 Page 4 of 5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination

that transcription is necessary is required before the United

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this the 8th day of August 2006.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00702-WS-B Document 8 Filed 08/08/06 Page 5 of 5