United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
TODD M. TERRELL PLAINTIFF
PELICIA HALL, et al. DEFENDANTS
KEITH BALL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
cause is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction  and the undersigned's Report
and Recommendation . For the reasons described below, the
Report and Recommendation is withdrawn, and the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction is denied.
filed his motion for preliminary injunction “to ensure
that he receives proper medical care” related to a
brain tumor.  at 1. He claimed that Defendants denied him
any substantive medical care related to his tumor or the
effect that inmate assaults had on that condition. Defendants
did not file a response to Terrell's motion, meaning that
the undersigned was left only with Terrell's serious
allegations and version of events when originally considering
the motion. The undersigned entered a Report and
Recommendation on July 19, 2018, wherein he recommended that
the following preliminary injunction be entered:
Within seven days of this Order, Defendants Perry and Hall
must allow Plaintiff Todd M. Terrell to be seen by a
qualified physician. Within twenty-one days of that exam,
Perry and Hall must file a response to this Order in which
they address Plaintiff's allegations in the motion ,
the results of the medical examination, and any treatment
plan relating to Terrell's alleged brain tumor or
injuries suffered in the assault. Along with that response,
Perry and Hall must submit, under seal, an affidavit from the
examining physician which includes (1) a description of
Terrell's current medical status, including any medical
conditions, current injuries, or illnesses, (2) the treatment
plan for those conditions, injuries, or illnesses, if any,
and (3) whether the physician recommends that Terrell be seen
by a specialist, and if so, when and for what purpose. If the
examining physician recommends that Terrell be seen by a
specialist, Perry and Hall must ensure that Terrell is
allowed to see that specialist as soon as recommended by the
physician.  at 4.
then, Defendants have provided the Court with more
information about Terrell's condition and medical care.
The Court held an omnibus hearing on September 26, 2018. At
that hearing, Defendants provided an affidavit from Dr.
William T. Brazier, a physician who provides medical care at
Central Mississippi Correctional Facility, where Terrell is
housed. Defendants also produced more than 1800 pages of
Terrell's medical records.
to Dr. Brazier, Terrell does not actually have a brain tumor,
but does have a “congenital anomaly of cerebrovascular
system, ” which is stable. See  (filed
under seal). Terrell “has been seen by medical
personnel in excess of 20 times, or more, from August 2014 to
present, for symptoms/concerns related to his complaint of
brain tumor.” Id. Terrell has had multiple
x-rays, receives medication, and has had two MRIs, the most
recent of which took place on March 22, 2018. Id.
These “MRI's reported no substantial change in the
anomaly as compared to the previous studies dating back to
2014.” Id. Dr. Brazier concluded by stating
that Terrell has a follow-up MRI already scheduled, his
symptoms are able to be managed using over-the-counter
medications, and that a referral to a specialist is
Court gave Terrell an opportunity to review Dr. Brazier's
affidavit and comment on any portions he believed to be
inaccurate. Terrell identified no portions of the affidavit
that he believed to be incorrect.
September 27, 2018, with the parties' consent, District
Judge Reeves referred to this matter to the Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). . Consequently, the
undersigned's Report and Recommendation  is now
superfluous, as the undersigned may now enter an order either
denying or granting any motion before the Court. Accordingly,
the Report and Recommendation  is withdrawn.
relief is an ‘extraordinary remedy.'”
Dung Quoc Pham v. Blaylock, 712 Fed.Appx. 360, 363
(5th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 1548, 200
L.Ed.2d 741 (2018) (quoting Miss. Power & Light Co.
v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir.
1985)). “In order for injunctive relief to be
appropriate, the movant must establish four requirements:
‘substantial likelihood of success on the merits,
substantial threat of irreparable harm absent an injunction,
a balance of hardships in [the moving party's] favor, and
no disservice to the public interest.'”
Id. (quoting Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v.
Vascular Health Scis., L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 582 (5th
the undersigned originally recommended that the District
Judge grant a preliminary injunction, he did not have the
benefit of having seen any response from Defendants or from
Terrell's medical providers. Instead, the undersigned was
only able to consider Terrell's allegations and the facts
as he presented them. Now, however, in deciding whether
Terrell has established the four elements necessary for
injunctive relief, the Court also has before it the
aforementioned additional sources. Dr. Brazier's
affidavit demonstrates that Terrell has received treatment
relating to his brain condition, that he is continuing to
receive treatment for that condition, and that it is
unnecessary for him to be seen by an outside specialist. This
affidavit, and the production of 1800 pages of medical
records, puts to rest the Court's earlier concern about
Terrell's medical treatment. Accordingly, the Court finds
that Terrell has failed to establish the four required
elements necessary for preliminary injunctive relief.
Specifically, he has failed to establish a substantial
likelihood that he will succeed on the merits of a claim that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs, and he has failed to establish that he faces a
substantial threat of irreparable harm absent an injunction.
Court has considered all the parties' arguments. Those
not specifically addressed do not change the outcome. For the
reasons described above, the Report and Recommendations of
July 19, 2018  is withdrawn, ...