HARRIS v. CREWS et al

Filing 50

ORDER adopting 48 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; granting 36 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; denying 49 Request for leave to file an amended complaint. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 8/27/2014. Conc erning Plaintiffs claim that he should be transferred to a prison closer to his pre-incarceration residence, this claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pr ocedure 12(b)(6). As to all other claims brought by Plaintiff, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. (kdm)

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
LUIS MUNUZURI HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 5:13-cv-00203-MP-GRJ

FELICIA NOBLES, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation dated July 16, 2014. (Doc. 48). The parties have been furnished a copy of the
Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant
to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections at Doc. 49. I
have made a de novo review based on those objections. Having considered the Report and
Recommendation, and the timely filed objections, I have determined that the Report and
Recommendation should be adopted. The undersigned, however, writes separately in light of the
following considerations.
First, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this matter be dismissed without prejudice
for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit, as is required by
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Doc. 48 at 8. However, the Magistrate Judge also finds that Plaintiff
properly exhausted his claim that he should be transferred to a prison closer to his preincarceration residence. See id. at 5, 7. The Magistrate Judge concludes that because prisoners
do not have a constitutional right to remain in or be transferred to a correctional institution of

Page 2 of 3

their own choosing, Plaintiff’s transfer request “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Id. at 7. The undersigned agrees and this Order shall
separately reflect this reason for the dismissal of this particular claim.
Second, in his objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff requests leave to
amend his complaint. See Doc. 49 at 1. As a general matter, “a district court may properly deny
leave to amend the complaint under Rule 15(a) when such amendment would be futile.” Hall v.
United Ins. Co. Of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1262–63 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Leave to amend is futile “when the complaint as amended would still be
properly dismissed or be immediately subject to summary judgment for the defendant.” Cockrell
v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Hall, 367 F.3d at 1263). Here, Plaintiff
presents no new facts, arguments, or evidence that would satisfy and/or otherwise remedy the
deficiencies noted in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Thus, leave to amend
must be denied.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 48) is adopted and
incorporated by reference in this order.

2.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (doc. 36) is GRANTED.

3.

Concerning Plaintiff’s claim that he should be transferred to a prison closer to his
pre-incarceration residence, this claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

4.

As to all other claims brought by Plaintiff, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit,
pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

Case No: 5:13-cv-00203-MP-GRJ

Page 3 of 3

5.

Plaintiff’s request for leave to file an amended complaint (doc. 49) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this

27th day of August, 2014

s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 5:13-cv-00203-MP-GRJ