REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Nelson Ryder is an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, Pennsylvania. On June 4, 2013, Ryder, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). On June 4, 2013, Ryder also filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (Doc. 3). Ryder did not file a brief in support of the motion.
Ryder alleges that defendants are deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by failing to make reasonable accommodations regarding his poor foot function. (Doc. 3). Ryder requests this Court enter an Order requiring defendants provide reasonable accommodations for his condition, and "desist from requiring plaintiff to perform work assignments which are inconsistent with his serious medical condition." (Doc. 3).
Preliminary injunctive relief is extraordinary in nature and should only be issued in limited circumstances. Meekins v. Law, 2008 WL 239564, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2008). See American Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Winback and Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1426-27 (3d Cir. 1994). Moreover, issuance of such relief is at the discretion of the trial judge. Orson, Inc. v. Miramax Film, Corp., 836 F.Supp. 309, 311 (E.D. Pa. 1993). In determining whether to grant a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief, courts in the Third Circuit consider the following four factors: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm resulting from a denial of relief; (3) the harm to the non-moving party if relief is granted; and (4) the public interest. NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enterprises, Inc., 176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999). It is the moving party that bears the burden of satisfying these factors. United States v. Bell, 238 F.Supp.2d 696, 699 (M.D. Pa. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
Ryder has failed to show irreparable harm absent issuance of an injunction. See Rush v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 287 Fed.Appx. 142, 144 (3d Cir. 2008). To show irreparable harm, a plaintiff must demonstrate a clear showing of immediate, irreparable injury; an injunction may not be used to eliminate the possibility of a remote future injury. Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645, 653 (3d Cir. 1994). Ryder has provided the Court with no information or evidence regarding his current medical condition, and has failed to establish that he is in danger of immediate ...