Backus v. Ridgeland Correctional Institution
Filing
11
ORDER and Opinion adopting Report and Recommendations of Mary Gordon Baker. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 5/30/2018.(cwhi, )
IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kevin Backus,
Plaintiff,
V.
Ridgeland Correctional Institution,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:2:17-3078
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R. & R.") of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 9) recommending that this Court summarily dismiss the Complaint
without prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the
R. & R. as the order of
the Court.
I.
Background and Relevant Facts
Plaintiff Kevin Backus is a state prisoner at Ridgeland Correctional Institution in South
Carolina. He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he did not receive due process in connection with a prison
disciplinary action taken against him. He asks the Court to reverse the disciplinary action,
reinstate his good-time credits, and order the prison to place him back in the general population.
Plaintiff does not seek monetary damages.
In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege: (1) that a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988). The Magistrate Judge explained in the R. & R. that Plaintiff's Complaint is
subject to summary dismissal because ( 1) the named Defendant, Ridgeland Correctional
-1-
Institution, is not a "person" for the purposes of a Section 1983 claim (Dkt. No. 9 at 4); (2) a
challenge to the loss of good time credit is not a cognizable Section 1983 claim and must be
brought instead as a habeas corpus action (id. at 4-5); and (3) Plaintiff has no constitutional right
to be housed in a particular unit in the correctional facility (id. at 6-7).
II.
Legal Standard
This Court liberally construes complaints filed by pro se litigants to allow the
development of a potentially meritorious case. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the
Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a viable federal
claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none
exists. See Weller v. Dep 't of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with
this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with
making a de nova determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which
specific objection is made. Additionally, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).
III.
Discussion
No party has filed objections to the R. & R., and the deadline to file objections has
passed. In the absence of any specific objections, "a district court need not conduct a de nova
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." See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
-2-
F .3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). This Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge has correctly applied the controlling law to the facts of this case.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court adopts the R. & R. (Dkt. No. 9) as the order of
the Court. The Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mark ergel
United States D1strict Court Judge
~
2018
May
Charleston, South Carolina
d
,
-3-
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?