Church v. Oklahoma Correctional Industries et al

Filing 89

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 80 (more fully set out). Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 9/20/11. (ns, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
WILLIAM L.A. CHURCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
OKLAHOMA CORRECTIONAL
INDUSTRIES, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-10-1111-R

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Valerie K. Couch on claims against the Virginia Defendants [Doc. No. 80] and
Plaintiff’s Objections to that Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 86.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Court reviews the Report and
Recommendation de novo in light of Plaintiff’s objections.
Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Because Plaintiff’s claims against the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Department of Corrections and Virginia Parole Board
necessarily imply the invalidity of Plaintiff’s conviction and confinement, his claims are not
cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82, 125 S.Ct.
1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253, 262 (2005); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584,
137 L.Ed.2d 906, 915 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d
383 (1994). Discovery would not assist the Plaintiff because the foregoing is true as a matter
of law.

In accordance with the foregoing, the Report and Recommendation on claims against
the Virginia Defendants [Doc. No. 80] is ADOPTED, the motion of Defendants
Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Department of Corrections and Virginia Parole Board
to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. No. 52] is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint
against those Defendants is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of September, 2011.

2