REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARY GORDON BAKER, Magistrate Judge.

This is a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Darrell Goss is a state prisoner representing himself and challenging communication restrictions that prison officials have placed upon him.

This matter is before the Court on a document from Goss titled "Motions for Injunction and Motion to Consolidate Motion for Injunction." (Dkt. No. 25.) Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review the motion and to submit a recommendation to the United States District Judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends the Court deny Goss's injunction request and find moot his consolidation request.

BACKGROUND

In addition to this lawsuit, Goss has four others pending before this Court: Goss v. Stirling, No. 0:18-cv-326-BHH-PJG; Goss v. Stirling, No. 1:18-cv-2124-BHH-SVH; Goss v. Williams, 2:18-cv-2938-BHH-MGB; and Goss v. Stirling, 6:18-cv-3245-BHH-KFM. He also has a mandamus petition pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See In re Goss, No. 19-2235. He is proceeding in forma pauperis in each one. (Dkt. No. 25 at 2.) As Goss acknowledges, he has "been vigorously active in all of his cases, filing numerous pleadings with the courts." (Dkt. No. 25 at 3.)

Recently, Goss's warden implemented new limitations on the amount of writing and mailing supplies indigent prisoners can obtain for their legal materials. (See Dkt. No. 25-1 at 24.) Now, each month an inmate may get one pen, thirty sheets of paper (and no more than twenty at a time), and five envelopes (and no more than three at a time). (Id.) Goss contends these limitations will leave him without enough supplies to litigate all his cases. (Dkt. No. 25 at 3.) The limitations are all the more problematic, he contends, because the prison is refusing to photocopy his legal filings. (Id. at 4-5.) Consequently, if he wants free copies of his filings, he must hand-write them, using supplies of ink and paper that are already inadequate for him. (Id.)

Goss argues the supply limitations are not related to any legitimate penological interest and will unfairly limit his access to the courts. (Dkt. No. 25 at 2, 3.) He predicts the limitations will result in one or more of his cases being dismissed for failure to prosecute after he fails to file something in them. (Id. at 5.) He wants the Court to issue a preliminary injunction "directing Defendants to provide him adequate legal supplies and photocopies of his legal papers for his federal cases. (Id. at 6.)

The caption for Goss's motion includes the case numbers of all five of his District Court cases. (Dkt. No. 25 at 1.) He wants his injunction request in each case "consolidate[d]" because he does not have enough supplies to file a separate motion in each case. (Id.) The Clerk of Court has filed the motion in all five cases' dockets.

The defendants in this case have not yet appeared; Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2 have not yet been served. (See Dkt. No. 27.) Consequently, Defendants have not responded to Goss's motion. In two of Goss's other cases, however, the defendants have responded. (See Dkt. No. 180 in Case No. 18-214; Dkt. No. 203 in Case No. 19-3245.) In those responses, the defendants state the limitations have been rescinded, as Department of Corrections officials have recognized the limitations provided inadequate supplies for indigent inmates with heavy caseloads, like Goss. (Dkt. No. 180 in Case No. 18-214, at 2; Dkt. No. 203 in Case No. 19-3245, at 2.) Officials are preparing a new policy that will limit supplies for non-legal use while providing inmates free supplies for their legal cases. (Dkt. No. 180 in Case No. 18-214, at 2; Dkt. No. 203 in Case No. 19-3245, at 2.)

DISCUSSION

The retraction of the supply limitations makes Goss's motion moot. That is reason enough to deny the motion.

Even if the issue were not moot, the undersigned would still recommend denying Goss's injunction request for lack of merit. In case 18-326, Judge Gossett recently entered a report and recommendation explaining in detail why Goss has not met the rigorous standards for obtaining a preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 239 in Case No. 18-326, at 29-32.) The undersigned agrees with Judge Gossett's analysis. To it, the undersigned adds one point not present in the other case: none of the defendants in this case appear to have any role in creating or enforcing the supply limitations at issue. Thus, even if Goss had shown he was entitled to a preliminary injunction against someone, he has not shown it should be issued against these defendants.

Goss's request for "consolidation" is moot, too. The essence of his request is to see that the one motion he mailed to the Court gets considered in all five of his cases. (Dkt. No. 25 at 1). The Clerk of Court already did that by including the motion on all five dockets.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny Goss's motion.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must `only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).