Rodagus Thomas v. Darlene Drew

Filing 920100217

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7669

RODAGUS MARILENTO THOMAS, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. DARLENE DREW, Warden FCI Bennettsville, Respondent ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, Chief District Judge. (9:08-cv-03111-DCN)

Submitted:

February 4, 2010

Decided:

February 17, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodagus Marilento Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Carolina, for Appellee.

Barbara Murcier Columbia, South

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Rodagus Marilento Thomas appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) habeas petition, construed in part as a complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Thomas, counts of misuse a of federal the prisoner, was charged with at ten FCI

telephone

while

incarcerated

Edgefield.

Following a review of the evidence, the Discipline

Hearing Officer ("DHO") found Thomas guilty on all ten counts, and imposed a number of sanctions, specifically: (1) a loss of

phone privileges until June 23, 2065; (2) a loss of twenty-seven days of good time credit; (3) a loss of commissary privileges until December 18, 2038; and (4) a loss of visitation privileges until April 16, 2046. After his exhausting punishment his in administrative the district

remedies,

Thomas

challenged

court, arguing in relevant part that his due process rights had been violated by his prison disciplinary hearing and that the sanctions imposed were excessive and violated his Eighth

Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. In response, Drew filed a motion for summary judgment.

2

The magistrate judge recommended that the motion for summary judgment be granted in part, and that Thomas's

convictions and the sanctions imposed regarding his loss of good time credit and telephone and commissary privileges be upheld. However, the magistrate judge found that Thomas was entitled to relief on the portion of his Bivens claim relating to his loss of visitation privileges, finding that the loss constituted a permanent ban on his visitation privileges and thus violated Thomas's Eighth Amendment rights. The district court affirmed

the magistrate judge's report and recommendation; granted the motion for summary and his judgment loss of in good part time regarding credits, Thomas's commissary

conviction

privileges, and phone privileges; found that Thomas had suffered a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights regarding his loss of visitation privileges; and ordered the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to re-sentence Thomas only on his visitation privileges.

Shortly thereafter, Drew filed a status report with the court, indicating that Thomas had been re-sentenced and his visitation privileges were suspended for 99 months, with those privileges to be restored on January 15, 2015. notice of appeal. On appeal, Thomas first asserts that the "de facto" permanent ban on his telephone privileges is a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Second, Thomas challenges the BOP's 3 Thomas filed a timely

revised sanction of 99 months of loss of visitation privileges, asserting that it still amounts to a permanent ban, and

therefore despite the court's order, Thomas received no relief. Third, Thomas claims that his sanctions were retaliatory,

because the other two inmates involved have already had their privileges reinstated, despite while having Thomas a has record no of prior record.

institutional

infractions

such

Finally, Thomas asserts that the sanctions imposed regarding his visitation privileges violate the Eighth Amendment rights of his two sons, who are no longer able to visit Thomas while he is in prison. As to his third and fourth claims, neither was raised in Thomas's administrative appeals, or in his complaint filed in the district court. This court generally does not address

claims raised for the first time on appeal. States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.

See Muth v. United Furthermore,

1993).

"[e]xceptions to this general rule are made only in very limited circumstances, raised issue such would as be where plain refusal error to or Id. consider would the newlyin a

result

fundamental miscarriage of justice."

Here, Thomas concedes

in a reply to Drew's informal brief that his claims are not properly before this Court, and instead asserts again that the ban violates his own Eighth Amendment not 4 rights, as previously exceptional

argued.

Because

Thomas

has

argued

that

circumstances exist to justify departure from the general rule, and we perceive no such circumstances, we decline to address these two claims. Thomas's claim that his revised sentence of 99 months without Amendment appeal. the visitation rights privileges is not still properly violates before his Eighth on

also

this

court

We have jurisdiction only over "all final decisions of courts certain of the United States," orders 28 from U.S.C. the § 1291

district and

(2006), courts.

interlocutory

district

See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006).

However, we do not have

jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from a BOP disciplinary hearing or re-sentencing. relief on this claim. Finally, Thomas challenges the "de facto" ban on his telephone rights. * privileges "To as a violation that of his Eighth of Amendment Therefore, Thomas is entitled to no

demonstrate

conditions

confinement

constitute cruel and unusual punishment, [an inmate] must (1) establish that prison officials acted with `deliberate

indifference' and (2) prove extreme deprivations of basic human needs or `serious or significant' pain or injury." Smith v.

Because Thomas failed to challenge the district court's decision to uphold his loss of good time credits and his commissary privileges, he has waived review of these claims pursuant to 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

*

5

Ozmint, 578 F.3d 246, 255 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996)). Thomas has done

neither; he has not alleged that he is experiencing an extreme deprivation Therefore, or that has he has suffered to a significant that his injury. Eighth

Thomas

failed

demonstrate

Amendment rights have been violated. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, we deny as moot Thomas's motion to expedite and affirm the order of the district court. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED

6