McQuarley v. Sconyers, et al (INMATE 2)
ORDER directing that, after an independent evaluation and de novo review of this case, Plaintiffs Objection is OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B)(ii) and (ii). Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 6/12/13. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CARLOS MCQUARLEY, #198468,
WARDEN KENNETH SCONYERS, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13cv200-WHA
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #9),
entered on April 16, 2013, and the Plaintiff’s Objection (styled as “Memorandum”) (Doc. #10),
filed on April 26, 2013.
Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation that his Complaint be dismissed prior to service.
He filed his § 1983 action against Wardens Sconyers, Carter, and Hetzel in regard to a
disciplinary he received for assault on a correctional officer (Officer Thompkins) . Plaintiff
alleges that it was actually the correctional officer who assaulted him and complains that
Defendants Sconyers, Hetzel, and Carter, nevertheless, believed Lt. Thompkins’ version of the
altercation despite there being no evidence in Plaintiff’s prison record that he fights with
correctional officers. Plaintiff also faults Defendants for not being more understanding rather
than taking sides with Defendant Thompkins. Plaintiff complains that he fears bad things will
come his way because he doesn’t know what correctional officers might do to him and that they
may try to hurt him.
The Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissal of the Complaint against the named
defendants based on the speculative nature of Plaintiff's allegations regarding his fears that
correctional officers may try to harm him. The Recommendation also found dismissal of the
Complaint against Defendants appropriate on the grounds that there is no respondeat superior
liability in a § 1983 action, there is no right to be housed in a particular area of the prison or in
any particular prison, there is no liberty interest in being granted parole, and that due process is
not implicated by a generalized assertion that prison officials upheld an allegedly erroneous
In his objection, Plaintiff contends that he cannot obtain evidence to prove his argument
and "hopes. . . the court would so order it." He further maintains that he still lives in fear and
appears to claim that he is being punished (housed in segregation) for something he didn't do.
Plaintiff's Complaint fails against the named Defendants for the reasons explained in the
Recommendation. His objection to the Recommendation does not provide any basis on which to
withdraw the findings and conclusions therein.
Therefore, after an independent evaluation and de novo review of this case, Plaintiff’s
Objection is OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
and it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of
process pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B)(ii) and (ii).
DONE this 12th day of June, 2013.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?