Eason v. Owen
Filing
21
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting respondent's motion for summary judgment, for 15 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on August 10, 2010. (kbos)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
L ero y Eason,
) ) P e t i t io n e r , ) v. ) ) J o h n Owen, Warden, ) ) R e sp o n d e n t. ) ______________________________________ )
#24046-044,
C/A No. 3:09-2611-JFA-JRM
ORDER
T h e pro se petitioner, Leroy Eason, initiated this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. H e challenges the outcome of a disciplinary hearing that deprived him of good time credit. S p e c if ic a lly, the petitioner was charged with being in possession of a cellular phone and v io la tin g a Bureau of Prison Code. Petitioner argues that such Code is arbitrary and c a p ric io u s , and that as a result of the disciplinary infraction, he was subjected to cruel and u n u s u a l punishment and denied equal protection. At the time this action was filed, petitioner w a s incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Williamsburg, South Carolina. T h e Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and R e c o m m e n d a ti o n wherein he suggests that the petitioner's due process rights were not v io la te d and he was accorded the full requirements of due process in his disciplinary hearing.
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 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).
1
T h e Magistrate Judge also recommends that respondent's motion for summary judgment2 s h o u ld be granted. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on th is matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation. The petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n . He filed timely objections to the Report after being granted an extension o f time within which to do so. A s set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the petitioner was found in p o s s e s s io n of a cell phone. A disciplinary hearing was held in accordance with BOP re g u latio n s during which time the petitioner did not deny that he was in possession of the cell p h o n e and he was found guilty. The disciplinary officer imposed sanctions including the loss of vested and non-vested Good Time Credit. The petitioner completed the administrative a p p e a l s process during which time the petitioner argued that the cell phone had been " p la n te d " on him. The petitioner was ultimately charged with violation of Code 108 with a G re a te st Severity Prohibited Act, "Possession, manufacture, or introduction of a hazardous to o l." Petitioner contends that Code 108 was the incorrect code to charge him under because a cell phone is not actually a hazardous tool. He further argues that he should have been c h a rg e d with a "lesser included offense;" that he was not provided equal protection under the
An order was issued pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975) notifying petitioner of the summary dismissal procedure and possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motions for summary judgment. Petitioner responded to the motion.
2
2
l a w ; and that such sanctions represent cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the E ig h th Amendment. A s the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, the BOP is charged with the management and re g u la tio n of all federal correctional institutions. 18 U.S.C. § 4042. Additionally, the BOP h a s in place regulations which provide a formal procedure to address inmate discipline. The d isc ip lin a ry hearing officer has the discretion to find, based on the evidence, that the inmate " [ c]o m m itt e d the prohibited act charged and/or a similar prohibited act if reflected in the In c id e n t Report." 28 C.F.R. § 541.17(f)(1). A cell phone is defined as a hazardous tool not o n ly for its potential to aid in an escape, but also because it may be "hazardous to institutional s e c u rity." See 28 C.F.R. 13, Table 3, Code 108. Possession of a cell phone can undermine in s titu tio n a l security because the inmate can avoid the telephone monitoring requirement f a cilita tin g the introduction of contraband, such as drugs, into the institution. T h e Magistrate Judge further suggests, and this court agrees, that there was no Eighth A m e n d m en t violation and the petitioner was afforded due process pursuant to BOP r e g u la tio n s . T h e petitioner's objections are merely cumulative of those claims he alleged in his in itia l petition and as such are overruled. A f te r a careful review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , and the objections thereto, the court finds the Magistrate Judge's re c o m m e n d a tio n to be proper and the Report is incorporated herein by reference.
3
A c c o rd in g ly, the respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted and this action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.
A u g u s t 10, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina
J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge
4
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?