Whitefield v. Brown et al

Filing 45

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 29 Report and Recommendations, dismissing Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/21/2011. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
William Whitefield,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case Manager Mrs. L. Brown;
Warden D. Drew; and BOP
Director Harley Lappinn,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 0:10–2730-TMC

ORDER

William Whitefield (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this
action pursuant to Bidens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation,
filed on April 18, 2011, recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. (Dkt. # 29). No objections were filed and the
court adopted the Report on October 19, 2011.
subsequently closed.

(Dkt. # 34).

The case was

However, on October 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion to

Reconsider (Dkt # 38) contending he never received the Report and Recommendation
which the court granted (Dkt. # 39). Plaintiff thereafter filed objections on November 9,
2011. (Dkt. # 43).
The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of
the Report to which specific objection is made and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit
the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court
reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life

& Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir.2005) stating that “in the absence of a timely
filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must ‘only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” ’ (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note). The Report
sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court
incorporates such without a recitation.
As noted above, Plaintiff has now filed objections to the Report which the court
has carefully reviewed. However, they provide no basis for this court to deviate from the
Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition.
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges his constitutional rights were violated in regard to
a disciplinary proceeding.

Inmates have a right to be free of arbitrary punishment.

Howard v. Smyth, 365 F.2d 428 (4th Cir.1966). However, their constitutional protections
are limited. In order for Plaintiff to prevail on his due process claim, he must show that
his punishment was not “within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction
has authorized the [BOP] to impose.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 478 (1995)
(quoting Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976)). In certain circumstances, such
as when an inmate is faced with loss of statutory good-time credits or solitary
confinement, some additional protections may be available. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 564-71 (1974) (holding that inmates subject to disciplinary hearings where they
may lose good time credits are entitled to advanced written notice, right to confront and
cross-examine witnesses a neutral detached hearing body; and written findings of facts).
Here, as the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff has not alleged any loss of good
time credits. In his objections, while Plaintiff acknowledges he has not lost any good
time credits, he contends the sanctions which were imposed prejudiced him, caused him
to be placed in a different custody level, and may effect his good time credits in the

future. (Objections at 2). An inmate has no constitutional right to any particular custody
level, Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245–46 (1983), and any such future loss of
good time credit at this point is purely speculative and cannot provide a basis for
Plaintiff’s Bivens claim.
Accordingly, after a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case
pursuant to the standard set forth above, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections are without
merit. Accordingly, the court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance
and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
November 21, 2011

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3
and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.