Bishop v. McLaughlin et al

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING 7 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's claims against Macon State Prison, the Plaintiff's claims regarding the grievance procedure at Macon State Prison, the Plaintiffs respondeat superior claims against Deputy Warden C linton Perry, and the Plaintiff's request for release from prison are all DISMISSED. The Plaintiff's access-to-courts and free-speech-rights claims against Defendants McLaughlin, Colbert, Johnson and Hall, as well as the Plaintiffs retaliation claim against Defendant Hill, will be allowed to proceed. Therefore, service should be made against the appropriate Defendants. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 08/19/2011. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
KYLE RICHARD BISHOP,
Plaintiff,
v.
Warden GREGORY MCLAUGHLIN,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:11-CV-107(MTT)

ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Recommendation (Doc. 7) (the
“Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle pursuant to
his 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) initial review. The Magistrate Judge recommends (a)
dismissing Macon State Prison from this case because it is not an entity capable of
being sued; (b) dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims regarding the grievance procedure at
Macon State Prison because a prisoner has no constitutional right to participate in
prison grievance procedures; (c) dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims against Deputy
Warden Clinton Perry because there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983; (d)
dismissing the Plaintiff’s request for release from prison because this relief is not
available under § 1983; (e) allowing the Plaintiff’s access-to-courts and free-speechrights claims to proceed against Defendants McLaughlin, Colbert, Johnson and Hall;
and (f) allowing the Plaintiff’s retaliation claim to proceed against Defendant Hill.
The Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Recommendation (Doc. 11). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has thoroughly considered the Plaintiff’s Objection and
has made a de novo determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which
Plaintiff objects. The Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions and

recommendations of the Magistrate Judge in its Recommendation (Doc. 7). Thus, the
Plaintiff’s claims against Macon State Prison, the Plaintiff’s claims regarding the
grievance procedure at Macon State Prison, the Plaintiff’s respondeat superior claims
against Deputy Warden Clinton Perry, and the Plaintiff’s request for release from prison
are all DISMISSED. The Plaintiff’s access-to-courts and free-speech-rights claims
against Defendants McLaughlin, Colbert, Johnson and Hall, as well as the Plaintiff’s
retaliation claim against Defendant Hill, will be allowed to proceed. Therefore, service
should be made against the appropriate Defendants.
It should be noted that in his Objection, the Plaintiff asks that additional
defendants be added to his case, and he asks for additional relief, including the addition
of an award of damages in the amount of $980,000. An objection to a recommendation
is not the appropriate document to request such relief. The Plaintiff must file a new
motion if he wishes to amend his complaint.1
SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of August, 2011.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
jch

1

The Plaintiff has already filed two motions to amend (Docs. 19 and 21). However, neither of these
addresses the specific amendments the Plaintiff seeks in his Objection.