1Starr Dalton v. West Virginia Division of Corr

Filing 920090305


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8188 1STARR DALTON, Plaintiff Appellant, v. WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; DAVID BALLARD; JIM RUBENSTEIN; JASON COLLINS, Captain; MARGARET CLIFFORD, Lieutenant; JAMES MCCLOUD, Lieutenant; BRIAN MATTOX, Sergeant; CURTIS DIXON, Sergeant; CLINTON RYAN, Corporal; NATE KENDRICK, Corporal; MICHAEL ANGEL; GARRATTE ADAMS; BRIAN GREENWOOD, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:08-cv-00335) Submitted: February 12, 2009 Decided: March 5, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 1Starr Dalton, Appellant Pro Se. David Edward Schumacher, Jason A. Winnell, BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: 1Starr accepting magistrate injunction. error. Dalton's correctional complaint alleged As physical part of abuse the from the Dalton proposed and appeals findings his the and district court's of order the recommendation for a judge denying motion preliminary We have reviewed the record and find no reversible facility personnel. requested relief, Dalton sought an injunction directing his transfer to another correctional facility. Dalton then moved for a preliminary injunction, requesting an immediate transfer. It is well-settled that a prisoner has no due process right to be housed in the facility of his choice. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-24 (1976). are not implicated 461 U.S. by transfers 248 Meachum v. Likewise, liberty interests between prisons. Dalton Olim did v. not Wakinekona, 238, (1983). Thus, demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits of his claim for injunctive relief, and the district court properly denied his motion for a preliminary injunction. Although Dalton stresses that the district court's order indicates it was unaware of, and thus neglected to review, his objections to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendation, such review could not have changed the outcome of the decision. Accordingly, 2 we affirm the order of the district facts court. legal before We dispense with are oral argument because in aid the the the and contentions the court adequately argument presented not materials and would decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?