Wiley v. Chatman et al

Filing 9

ORDER adopting 6 Recommendation and overruling 7 Objections. Wiley's 1 Complaint and 8 proposed amendment fail to state a claim and will be dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal counts as a "strike". An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/1/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
KENDRICK WILEY
ADC #139566
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 5:17-cv-244-DPM

KIMBERELY CHATMAN, Sergeant,
Cummits Unit; CHRIS BUDNIK,
Warden, Cummins Unit; STRAUGHN,
Deputy Warden, ADC; and TERRIE
BANNISTER, Disciplinary Judge, ADC

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On de nova review, the Court adopts the recommendation, NQ 6,
and overrules Wiley's objections, NQ 7.

FED.

R. Crv. P. 72(b)(3). The

filing of a false disciplinary charge is not itself actionable under
§ 1983; and claims for defamation or slander aren't either. Dixon v.

Brown, 38 F.3d 379, 379 (8th Cir. 1994); Miner v. Brackney, 719 F.2d
954, 955 (8th Cir. 1983). Further, spending thirty days in segregation
and losing contact visits aren't the type of atypical and significant
hardships required to make out a due process claim. Phillips v. Norris,
320 F.3d 844, 846-47 (8th Cir. 2003). Wiley's complaint and proposed
amendment, NQ 1 & 8, therefore fail to state a claim and will be
dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal counts as a "strike" for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An in forma pauperis appeal from this

Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
28U.S.C.§1915(a)(3).
So Ordered.

,
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2-