REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MARY GORDON BAKER, Magistrate Judge.

The plaintiff, Bilal A. Al-Haqq ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the above-captioned defendants ("Defendants"), denied him the grievance process, denied him due process, failed to protect him, denied him adequate medical care, and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment during the time he was incarcerated at Turbeville Correctional Institution. (Am Compl., Dkt. No. 14-2 at 11 of 37). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on February 8, 2017, Plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate, who "dash[ed]" his face with chemicals and injured his shoulder. (Id. at 2 of 37.) Plaintiff appears to claim that the Defendants failed to protect him from the inmate's assault, and that the Defendants have denied him adequate medical care for the resultant injuries. (Id. at 2-3 of 37.)

Presently pending before the Court is the "Plaintiff's Order to Cause for Injunction," to which the Defendants have filed a response in opposition thereto. (Dkt. Nos. 36, 46.) Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., all pretrial matters in civil rights cases challenging conditions of confinement are referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for consideration. As the court finds that the issues have been adequately briefed, it has determined that oral argument is not necessary. See Local Civ. Rule 7.06 (D.S.C.).

The court liberally construes the "Plaintiff's Order" as a motion seeking injunctive relief. It appears that Plaintiff is asking the federal district court to enter an order enjoining the Defendants, their successors in office, agents, employees, and all other parties acting in concert and participating with them (1) from denying the Plaintiff permission to wear medicallyapproved footwear (tennis shoes); (2) from denying the Plaintiff permission to wear sunglasses indoors because the Plaintiff's eyes are sensitive to light; and (3) from denying the Plaintiff medical treatment for his right shoulder, which he alleges was injured during the February 8, 2017 altercation. (Dkt. No. 36 at 1 of 3.) The Plaintiff also requests that the court "restrain" Dr. Alden and Nurse Harrison, "and each of their officers, agents, employers, and all persons acting in concert or participation [sic] with them . . . from retaliating against [him] for filing this action."1 (Id. at 2 of 3.)

As a threshold matter, it is unclear to the court whether Plaintiff seeks preliminary or permanent injunctive relief. The standard for a permanent injunction is essentially the same as for a preliminary injunction, with the exception that the plaintiff must show success on the merits to obtain the latter. Smith v. S.C. State Elec. Comm'n, 901 F.Supp.2d 639 (D.S.C. 2012). For a preliminary injunction to issue, a litigant must establish: (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), reinstated in relevant part on remand, 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam), overruling Blackwelder Furniture Co. of Statesville v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977). In the prison context, courts grant preliminary injunctive relief involving the management of correctional institutions only under exceptional and compelling circumstances. Taylor v. Freeman, 34 F.3d 266, 269 (4th Cir. 1994).

A permanent injunction will issue when a plaintiff has demonstrated "(1) that it suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction." Pure Fishing, Inc. v. Redwing Tackle, Ltd., 888 F.Supp.2d 726, 737 (D.S.C. 2012) (quoting eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). In analyzing these factors, "inadequacy of damages and irreparability of harm are often treated interchangeably." Palmetto Conservation Found. v. Smith, 642 F.Supp.2d 518, 531 (D.S.C. 2009).

In the present case, Plaintiff's pleading is in the form of a proposed order, and he has set forth no argument whatsoever with respect to establishing any of the elements of either type of injunction. Plaintiff's allegations fail to establish (1) that he is likely to succeed on the merits;

(2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; (4) and that an injunction is in the public interest. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to allege that monetary damages are inadequate to compensate him for his alleged injuries. In short, Plaintiff's speculative allegations concerning his medical needs are insufficient to merit the extraordinary relief required for a federal district court to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction.

In conclusion, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements for a court to issue the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief. Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the "Plaintiff's Order to Cause for Injunction" (Dkt. No. 36) be DENIED.

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).