Jones v. Lieber CI et al

Filing 47

ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Wallace W Dixon; granting 33 Motion to Dismiss with prejudice; granting 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 7/23/2014.(ssam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Michael L. Jones,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lieber Correctional Institution; Perry CI
Warden Larry Cartledge; Assoc. Warden
Florence Mauney; Richard L. Turner, SCDC
Disciplinary Hearing Officer; D. Filmore,
Inmate Classification Committee Chairperson;
SCD C I nma t e G r i e v a n c e Branch
Headquarters; Perry Correctional Institution;
and S.C. Department of Corrections;
individually and in their official capacities,
Defendants.
____________________________________

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

C/A: 2:13-2034-JFA-BHH

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff, Michael L. Jones, is an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”). He brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
contending that the defendants violated his constitutional due process rights in regard to his
administrative segregation at SCDC.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 has prepared a thorough Report and

1

The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court.
Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Recommendation and opines that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment2 should be
granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter,
and the court incorporates such without a recitation.
The parties were notified of their right to file specific objections to the Report and
Recommendation. The plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report, and the defendants
replied thereto. The court will address the objections in turn.
The gist of plaintiff’s complaint is that he has been improperly classified by the SCDC
as a Security Detention (“SD”) and improperly placed in administrative segregation. He is
currently serving a 35-year sentence for armed robbery. During his confinement at the
SCDC, the plaintiff has been charged with over 60 different offenses, 17 of which are
considered assaultive in nature. Plaintiff was initially housed at the Lieber Correctional
Institution, where he was eventually placed in the Special Management Unit. On June 11,
2012, he was transferred to the Perry Correctional Institution.
As noted above, the gist of the plaintiff’s complaint is that he was denied “‘due
process’ [because of ] inadequate procedures employed to keep plaintiff in administrative
isolation solitary.” He specifically complains that correctional officials “exhibited gross
negligence in regard to administrative regulations formulated to protect plaintiff’s liberty
interests, constitutional rights.” Plaintiff also contends that he was afforded “no notice of his
being administratively segregated nor afforded any form of a hearing.” He also asserts that
2

An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying
plaintiff of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond
to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff responded to the motion.

2

certain defendants have a “fiduciary duty of care relationship to provide plaintiff assurance
of elemental fairness whenever substantial individual interests are at stake.” Finally, plaintiff
complains that certain individual grievance coordinators failed to investigate his grievances
and “exhibited inaction in curing deficiencies in the disciplinary...review hearing
proceedings.” According to plaintiff’s complaint, he was ultimately sanctioned to 358 days
of disciplinary detention, 450 days of loss of good time credits, and 75 days of no telephone,
canteen, or visitation privileges.
The Magistrate Judge begins the substantive portion of her Report and
Recommendation by pointing out that prisoners, such as the plaintiff, have no constitutional
right to a particular classification.” Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983). Moreover,
in Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995), the United States Supreme Court held that
a change in the condition of a prisoner’s confinement that does not exceed the scope of the
original sentence gives rise to a federally-protected liberty interest only if it “implicates
atypical and significant hardship of the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life.”
In a civil action from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals applying Sandin, the Court
dealt with a case where an inmate alleged that his cell was infested with vermin and smeared
with urine, that no outside recreation was permitted, that no religious services where
available, and that food was served in considerably smaller portions. Beverati v. Smith, 120
F.3d 500, 503 (4th Cir. 1997). The Fourth Circuit held that these conditions of confinement
and segregation were not so atypical that exposure to them for six months imposed a
3

significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
Before the Magistrate Judge, all defendants moved for summary judgment. In a
thorough and comprehensive Report and Recommendation that carefully canvasses the
claims set out in the complaint, the affidavits provided in regard to the motion for summary
judgment, and the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge opines that on the record before her,
summary judgment should be granted. The Magistrate Judge suggests that while the
conditions complained of by the plaintiff may be unpleasant, they do not impose an “atypical
and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
Accordingly, no liberty interest arises and therefore, the procedural irregularities alleged by
the plaintiff lack merit.
The court has carefully reviewed the plaintiff’s 18-page objection memorandum and
finds that they constitute little more than a reassertion of the basic arguments advanced to,
and rejected by, the Magistrate Judge. As such, the objections are overruled.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and
Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation is proper and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27) is granted. Plaintiff’s motion to
dismiss defendant Turner (ECF No. 33) is granted with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

July 23, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
4