1Starr Dalton v. West Virginia Division of Corr

Filing 920090305

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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