BRISTOW MARCHANT, Magistrate Judge
This action has been filed by the Plaintiff, pro se, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by the named Defendants. On June 23, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion with the Court for a "Temporary Restraining Order", in which Plaintiff requests an order from this Court enjoining the Defendants from "denying the Plaintiff treatment for his medical needs." Plaintiff's motion should be denied, as he has failed to present facts sufficient to warrant such relief.
In order to prevail on a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must show: 1) that he will suffer irreparable harm if the motion is not granted; and 2) that he has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of his claim. Rule 65(a) and (b), Fed.R.Civ.P. Both a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order are extraordinary remedies which will not be granted unless there is a clear showing of both probable success and irreparable injury. Murphy v. Society of Real Estate Appraisers, 388 F.Supp. 1046, 1049 (E.D.Wis. 1979); see also White v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 349 U.S. 366 (1955).
In considering such a motion, the Court should balance the following four factors; 1) the likelihood of irreparable harm to the Plaintiff if the injunction is not granted; 2) the likelihood of harm to the Defendants if the injunction is granted; 3) the likelihood that the Plaintiff will succeed on the merits; and 4) the public interest. Blackwelder Furniture Co. of Statesville, Inc. v. Seilig Manufacturing Co., Inc., 550 F.2d 189, 195-196 (4th Cir. 1977); Hughes Network Systems v. InterDigital Com. Corp., 17 F.3d 691, 693 (4th Cir. 1994). The balancing of the relative hardships (factors one and two) is the most important determination, and how strong a showing the Plaintiff must make with regard to a likelihood of success on the merits depends on to what degree the likelihood of irreparable harm balances in his favor. Id. (citing Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 926 F.2d 353, 359 (4th Cir. 1991)).
Plaintiff claims that he has Hepatitis C, and that the Defendants are denying him effective treatment. However, Plaintiff has himself submitted exhibits showing that his medical condition is being followed by prison officials, and in response to Plaintiff's motion, the Defendants have submitted an affidavit from the Medical Review Coordinator for the SCDC, who attests that Plaintiff's medical records show that Plaintiff does not meet established criteria for implementation of anti-Hepatitis C medication (Interferon/Ribavirin). See Phillips Affidavit. Based on the material before the Court, Plaintiff has failed to show a sufficient likelihood that he will succeed on the merits of his claim to entitle him to the extraordinary remedy of the granting of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, nor has he met this standard in showing a likelihood of irreparable harm because of the actions of the Defendants.
Therefore, as the Plaintiff has failed to meet the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, it is recommended that his motion be denied. The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
A Report and Recommendation is required on this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).