NORMAN v. GRIFFIN et al

Filing 7

ORDER adopting 5 Report and Recommendations.Ordered by U.S. District Judge HUGH LAWSON on 12/302014 (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

TRAVIUS NORMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-185 (HL)

COII OFFICER GRIFFIN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is a Recommendation from United States Magistrate
Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff (Doc. 5) that the Complaint (Doc. 1) by Plaintiff
Travius Norman (“Plaintiff”) be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has filed pro
se objections (Doc. 6) to the Recommendation. After making a de novo review of
the Recommendation, the Court accepts and adopts it in full.
Plaintiff, who is an inmate at Valdosta State Prison, alleges that his
constitutional rights were violated by how Defendants, who are guards and
officials at the prison, responded when another inmate attacked him in his cell.
However, even if the allegations in the Complaint are true, they do not state a
claim under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. There is no indication that
the Defendants disregarded a substantial risk of injury to Plaintiff or that they
facilitated the inmate who attacked Plaintiff. Even if Defendants were negligent in
how quickly they were able to subdue the inmate, negligence alone does not

qualify as a constitutional violation. The Complaint also fails to state a claim
against Leon Carter who, after the attack, ordered Plaintiff to be returned to the
cell in which the attack had occurred. State prison authorities have considerable
discretion in determining where to house inmates, Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S.
215, 223-25, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976), and, Plaintiff’s return to his
cell being without incident, the order for his return did not violate the Constitution.
Judge Langstaff also correctly recommends dismissing the Complaint on
the separate grounds that Plaintiff has violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11 and abused the judicial process. On the complaint form, Plaintiff denied
having ever filed a lawsuit relating to the conditions of his confinement when, in
fact, an earlier lawsuit concerning the same attack made the basis of this lawsuit
was previously dismissed by this Court. Dismissing the Complaint is an
appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s false statements. See Young v. Sec’y Fla. for
the Dep’t of Corrs., 380 F. App’x 939, 940-41 (11th Cir. 2010); Hood v.
Tompkins, 197 F. App’x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006).
SO ORDERED, this the 30th day of December, 2014.

s/ Hugh Lawson________________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
scr

2