REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAIGE J. GOSSETT, Magistrate Judge.

The plaintiff, Tequan L. Brown, a self-represented state prisoner, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for a Report and Recommendation on Brown's motion requesting a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. (ECF No. 12.) Having carefully reviewed the motion and the pleadings in this case, the court finds that Brown's motion should be denied.

DISCUSSION

Brown filed the instant action in August 2016, which the court construed as purporting to assert claims against the named defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false imprisonment in violation of the Fourth Amendment, for deliberate indifference to safety/failure to protect in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and for a violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (See ECF No. 8 at 2.) In his motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, Brown alleges that, while housed at Perry Correctional Institution, two non-party correctional officers—Sergeant Tucker and Lieutenant Cross—"made several threats on Brown's life." (ECF No. 12-1 at 2.) Additionally, Brown realleges the claims from his Complaint stemming from his placement in restrictive housing without a timely hearing. Like the injunctive relief sought in his Complaint, Brown's motion requests that he be transferred to a different institution. (Id. at 7.)

"Preliminary injunctions are not to be granted automatically." Wetzel v. Edwards 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980). Such relief regarding the administration of a state prison should be granted only in compelling circumstances. See Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 269 (4th Cir. 1994). Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has long recognized the "wide ranging deference" that the judiciary must show prison administrators with regard to matters within their discretion. See Wetzel, 635 F.2d at 288 (discussing the complexities of running a penal institution and the reluctance of federal courts to interfere in the problems of prison administration).

A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish all four of the following elements: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 346-47 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds by 559 U.S. 1089 (2010), reissued in part by 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010), overruling Blackwelder Furniture Co. of Statesville v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977).1 A plaintiff must make a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Winter, 555 U.S. at 22; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 345-46. Similarly, he must make a clear showing that he is likely to be irreparably harmed absent injunctive relief. Winter, 555 U.S. at 20-23; Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347. Only then may the court consider whether the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff's favor. See Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 346-47.2 Finally, the court must pay particular regard to the public consequences of employing the extraordinary relief of injunction. Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 347 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 24).

As an initial matter, to the extent Brown is seeking relief against individuals who are not defendants in this matter, such relief is unavailable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a). Additionally, it appears that Brown is no longer confined at Perry Correctional Institution and is currently housed at Broad River Correctional Institution. (See Notice of Address Change, ECF No. 30.) Therefore, to the extent Brown seeks to be transferred from Perry Correctional Institution, such a request is moot.3

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the court recommends that Brown's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 12) be denied.

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).