United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO.
54] AND DENYING MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [DKT. NO.
M. KEELEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
17, 2017, the pro se petitioner, Michael Curtis
Reynolds (“Reynolds”), filed a Petition for
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(“Petition”), attacking the validity of his
conviction and sentence (Dkt. No. 1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 and the local rules, the Court referred this
matter to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for
initial screening and a report and recommendation
March 1, 2018, Reynolds filed a motion for a temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction, in which he
sought an order from the Court directing certain BOP staff
members to provide him free postage stamps (Dkt. No. 53).
Magistrate Judge Aloi's R&R recommended that the
motion be denied because Reynolds had not established his
entitlement to a preliminary injunction pursuant to the
four-factor test articulated in Winter v. Nat. Res. Def.
Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (Dkt. No. 54).
Specifically, the R&R concluded that Reynolds had not
established a likelihood of success on the merits, as
required by the first factor in Winter. Id.
at 5. Reynolds timely filed objections to the R&R (Dkt.
reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the Court must
review de novo only those portions to which an
objection is timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). For
the most part, Reynolds' objections fail to identify
specific errors in the R&R and, in fact, contain few
references to the R&R itself. When liberally construed,
Reynolds' objections ostensibly relate to the
R&R's conclusion that he has not established a
likelihood of success on the merits of his Petition (Dkt. No.
56). See DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F.Supp.2d
333, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (noting that pro se
objections should be “accorded leniency” and
“construed to raise the strongest arguments that they
suggest” (internal quotation omitted)).
preliminary injunction is proper when the plaintiff can
“ establish that he is likely to succeed on the
merits,  that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary relief,  that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and  that an injunction is in
the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20.
“[A]ll four requirements must be satisfied, ”
Real Truth About Obama, Inc., 575 F.3d at 346, and
“[a] preliminary injunction shall be granted only if
the moving party clearly establishes entitlement.”
Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224, 230 (4th Cir.
Court is mindful of the fact that "[a] preliminary
injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of
right." Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 (citing
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008)). A
preliminary injunction is a remedy that is “granted
only sparingly and in limited circumstances.” Micro
Strategy, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 245 F.3d 335, 339 (4th
Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the prison
context, courts should grant preliminary injunctive relief
involving the management of correctional institutions
“only under exceptional and compelling
circumstances.” Asemani v. Warden, No. CV
RDB-16-1170, 2017 WL 1194173, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2017)
(citing Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 269 (4th
seeking a preliminary injunction requiring the BOP to provide
him free postage, Reynolds argues that his difficulty
obtaining postage stamps is “hindering [his] legal
process” (Dkt. No. 53 at 2). Having reviewed
Reynold's request in light of the factors outlined in
Winter, the Court concludes that he is not entitled
to the equitable relief he seeks.
as the magistrate judge correctly concluded, Reynolds has not
shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his
§ 2241 Petition. On the contrary, Magistrate Judge Aloi
has entered a second R&R in the case, recommending that
the Court grant the defendant's pending motion to dismiss
(Dkt. No. 27) and deny and dismiss the Petition as successive
and an abuse of the writ (Dkt. No. 63).
Reynolds has failed to explain how the BOP's failure to
provide him with free postage has prejudiced the pursuit of
his legal claims. Indeed, Reynolds' claim that his access
to the Court has been hindered is belied by the fact that,
since July 17, 2017, he has written and mailed at least
forty-two (42) separate filings in this case, including his
objections to the R&R (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 10, 14, 17, 21-26,
29, 32-44, 47-53, 56-62, 65-67). Accordingly, Reynolds cannot
establish that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief. Finally, Reynolds has provided
no evidence to suggest that the balance of equities tips in
his favor, or that the extraordinary remedy he requests would
serve the public interest.
Reynolds cannot satisfy the factors set forth in
Winter, the Court OVERRULES his
objections (Dkt. No. 56), ADOPTS the R&R
(Dkt. No. 54), and DENIES the motion for a