Corring v. SMCI Supervising,et al

Filing 49

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing Case without prejudice. A separate Judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall be entered. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on November 27, 2013 (dsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION

DANIEL GEORGE CORRING
VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13cv29-KS-MTP

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, ET AL

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC.
This cause is before the Court on Motion to Dismiss [37] filed by Defendants
Christopher Epps, Jarita Bivens, Hubert Davis, Johnnie Denmark, Ronald King, and
E.L. Sparkman. Defendant Dr. Parveen Kumar joined in the Motion to Dismiss [40].
Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker has filed a Report and Recommendation [44] and
Plaintiff has objected to the Report and Recommendation [46]. The Court has
considered the above pleadings, as well as other matters pending in the case,
applicable law, etc., and finds that the Motion to Dismiss [37] should be granted and
that this case be dismissed without prejudice. The Court further finds that the Motion
for Relief From Retaliation [33] and Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief [34] should
be denied. The Court’s rulings are based on the following reasons:

1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On February 13, 2013, Plaintiff Daniel George Corring, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed his Complaint [1] pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated
at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution (“SMCI”) in Leakesville, Mississippi, and his
claims arose while he was a post-conviction inmate at SMCI. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants

failed to protect him from harm at the hands of fellow inmates in violation of his constitutional
rights. Pending before this Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Retaliation, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
Exhaust Available Administrative Remedies.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation this Court is required to
“make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See
also Longmire v. Gust, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991) (Party is “entitled to a de novo
review by an Article III Judge as to those issues to which an objection is made.”) Such
review means that this Court will examine the entire record and will make an
independent assessment of the law. The Court is not required, however, to reiterate the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37,
40 (5th Cir. 1993) nor need it consider objections that are frivolous, conclusive or
general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th
Cir. 1997). No factual objection is raised when a petitioner merely reurges arguments
contained in the original petition. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 1993).
III. PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ANALYSIS
In the Objections listed by Plaintiff, he goes through a litany of irrelevant
statements and also makes scurrilous comments about the Court and judges. Plaintiff
is cautioned that such comments are improper. The issue for judges in ruling on cases
is what are the facts and law. Plaintiff makes no comment or points to no error in Judge
Parker’s analysis or faithfulness to following applicable statutory and case law.

This Court finds that the Objection is irrelevant to the issues before this Court
and that the Objections lack merit. It is clear from the pleadings and admitted by the
Plaintiff that he did not exhaust his remedies, which is a clear requirement of the statute
and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Therefore, this Court finds that the petition should
be dismissed. If the petition is dismissed, the pending motions, likewise, should be
dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) this Court has conducted an independent
review of the entire record and a de novo review of the matters raised by the objections.
For the reasons set forth above, this Court concludes that Daniel Corring’s objections
lack merit and should be overruled. The Court further concludes that the Report and
Recommendation is an accurate statement of the facts and the correct analysis of the
law in all regards. Therefore, the Court accepts, approves and adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s factual findings and legal conclusions contained in the Report and
Recommendation. Accordingly, it is ordered that the United States Magistrate Judge
Michael T. Parker’s Report and Recommendation is accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and that Daniel George Corrings’ complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
The pending Motions for Relief From Retaliation and Emergency Injunctive Relief are
denied as moot.
SO ORDERED this, the 27th day of November, 2013.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE