Howell v. Hall et al

Filing 13

ORDER overruling all of Plaintiff's objections; adopting the 9 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court; dismissing Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and closing this civil action. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 3/9/2017. (jah)

Download PDF
FILED u.s.Disrr'CT court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION ZOllHAR-q p j: 12 CLCr'L. JOHNATHAN SANTEDRO HOWELL, Plaintiff, CV 317-001 V. WARDEN HALL; WARDEN GAMMAGE; WAPDEN McCLOUD; WARDEN MS.LEWIS; miT MANAGER GRANT; REGION.\L DIRECTOR TOOLE; ASSISTANT OTIS STANTON; and LT. DAVIS, Defendants. ORDER After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 11.) Plaintiff provides no information to undermine the Magistrate Judge's analysis the case is due to be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to cure the deficiency with his due process claim by alleging his chances at parole are hindered by his placement in Tier II segregation, (see id at 1), his argument fails. "A state parole system creates a liberty interest in parole that is subject to the protections of the Due Process Clause only when it establishes a legitimate expectation of parole," but the Eleventh Circuit has ruled "Georgia's parole system does not create a legitimate expectation of parole." Porter v. Rav. 461 F.Bd 1315, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES all of Plaintiffs objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DISMISSES Plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and CLOSES this civil action. SO ORDERED this day of March, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia 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?