Opinion
CV422-299
05-02-2023
NATHAN AVERY ROACH, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY COUNTY JAIL; CAPTAIN MCEADY, Captain of Liberty County Jail; MAJOR KRUMNOW, Head of Security Liberty County Jail; LIEUTENANT BARNES, Individual and Official Capacity; SERGEANT BROWN, Individual and Official Capacity; LIBERTY COUNTY; LIBERTY COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; LT. ANITA WALTHOUR; GENESYS HEALTH ALLIANCE; and NURSE DIXON; Defendants.
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's March 21, 2023, Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14), to which no objections have been filed. After a careful review of the record, the report and recommendation (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case. Defendants Liberty County Jail, Captain McEady, Major Krumnow, Liberty County, Liberty County Sheriff's Department, Genesys Health Alliance, and Nurse Dixon are DISMISSED. Plaintiff Nathan Avery Roach's conditions-of-confinement and deliberate indifference claims are also DISMISSED. Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Defendant Anita Waithour and his excessive force claim against Defendants Brown and Barnes remain pending. (See Docs. 16-22.)
The Court reviews de novo a magistrate judge's findings to which a party objects, and the Court reviews for clear error the portions of a report and recommendation to which a party does not object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Merchant v. Nationwide Recovery Serv., Inc., 440 F.Supp.3d 1369, 1371 (N.D.Ga. 2020) (outlining the standard of review for report and recommendations (citing Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam))).
Plaintiff has submitted a document titled "Notice of Request," that merits comment. (See Doc. 15.) In the notice, Plaintiff requests, "if possible, [that] the Courts mail a document prohibiting any staff member of any county [j]ail or correctional facility from confiscating or 'take away' [sic] Plaintiff Roach 'Black Composition Book' and all the written [d]ocuments within that composition book." (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff explains that the composition book contains information he has recorded relevant to the claims asserted in this case. (Id.) He is concerned that "it may be highly possible" that the book will be confiscated upon his hypothetical transfer to another facility. (Id.)
Plaintiff's notice does not present any cognizable request for relief. Charitably construed, it seeks some form of injunctive relief prohibiting unidentified corrections employees from confiscating his composition book. A preliminary injunction, that is, injunctive relief imposed before determination of the merits of a plaintiff's claims, "is an extraordinary and drastic remedy . . . ." Barr v. Tucker, __ F.Supp.3d __, No. CV422-226, 2023
WL 2139663, at *4 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 21, 2023). The Court need not consider the merits of Plaintiff's request because the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a non-party, much less an unidentified and hypothetical non-party. See, e.g., Infant Formula Antitrust Litig. v. Abbott Lab'ys, 72 F.3d 842, 842-43 (11th Cir. 1995). To the extent that Plaintiff's notice requests injunctive relief, therefore, it is DENIED. (Doc. 15.)
SO ORDERED.