United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Anderson, pro se.
Samie, United States Attorney for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is before the Court on Plaintiff's objections
(“Objection”) [Doc. No. 14] to United States
Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez's October 17, 2018,
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [Doc. No.
13]. Magistrate Judge Menendez recommended that the Court
deny Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) and preliminary injunction
(“Motion”). (R&R at 1.) For the reasons set
forth below, the Court overrules Plaintiff's Objection,
adopts the R&R in full, and denies Plaintiff's
is currently confined in the Special Housing Unit at the
Federal Prison Camp in Duluth (“FPC-Duluth”), a
minimum-security facility. (R&R at 1.) He alleges that
the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) plans to transfer
him to another facility. (Id.) On October 9, 2018,
Plaintiff filed a Motion to prevent the BOP from moving
forward with this planned transfer. [Doc. No. 1].
Plaintiff contends that he has two medical conditions that
require follow-up appointments and treatment, and that the
planned transfer would cause him to miss essential care.
(Mot. at 2-3.) Second, Plaintiff asserts that the BOP's
planned transfer is retaliatory. (Id.) Plaintiff
claims that prison officials at FPC-Duluth disciplined him
and decided to transfer him to another facility because he
exercised his First Amendment right in filing several
thorough and well-reasoned R&R, Magistrate Judge Menendez
recommended that the Motion be denied because Plaintiff had
failed to meet the Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys.,
Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 112 (8th Cir. 1981), factors for
injunctive relief. (R&R at 1, 5.) On November 6, 2018,
Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Judge Menendez's
R&R. (Obj. at 1.)
raises four objections to the R&R. First, he contends
that the magistrate judge improperly concluded that he is
unlikely to succeed on the merits of his Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim. (Id. at 2-6.) Second,
Plaintiff objects to the R&R's finding that he failed
to establish irreparable harm resulting from the transfer.
(Id. at 6-8.) Third, Plaintiff argues that the
magistrate judge wrongly decided that he is unlikely to
succeed on the merits of his retaliatory transfer claim.
(Id. at 11-18.) And finally, Plaintiff objects to
the R&R's conclusion that it would not be in the
public interest to enjoin his transfer to another facility.
(Id. at 18-22.)
determine if Plaintiff is entitled to a TRO or a preliminary
injunction, a court considers: (1) the likelihood of success
on the merits of Plaintiff's claims; (2) the threat of
irreparable harm to Plaintiff; (3) the balance between that
threat of harm and the injury that granting injunctive relief
would inflict on other interested parties; and (4) whether
the issuance of a TRO or preliminary injunction is in the
public interest. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys.,
Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 n.1 (8th Cir. 1981). No single
factor is determinative and all must be viewed in totality
when a court decides if relief should be granted.
Id. at 113. Moreover, Plaintiff has the burden of
proving that he is entitled to the injunctive relief he
seeks. See Jackson v. Macalester Coll., 169
F.Supp.3d 918, 921 (D. Minn. 2016) (citing Watkins, Inc.
v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844).
Court reviews de novo any portion of the magistrate
judge's opinion to which specific objections are made,
and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations” contained in
that opinion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b)(3).