Champlin v. Warden FCI Williamsburg

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS the Report 25 , and Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment 16 is GRANTED.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 08/09/2018. (dsto, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Oba Layton Champlin,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Warden, FCI Williambsburg,
)
)
Respondent. )
________________________________ )

C/A No. 4:17-2782-DCC

OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 for habeas corpus relief. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the
Alternative, a Motion for Summary Judgment along with a return containing supporting
memorandum and exhibits. ECF No. 16. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge for pre-trial handling.
The Magistrate Judge noted that the parties submitted evidence outside of the
pleadings; therefore, the Magistrate Judge treated the Motion as a Motion for Summary
Judgment.

ECF No. 25 at 2.

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

Recommendation (“Report”) on May 11, 2018, recommending that the Court grant the
Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 25. Petitioner filed objections to the Report
on June 4, 2018. ECF No. 28.
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 this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71. The
Court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the
1

Report that have been specifically objected to, and the Court may accept, reject, or
modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific
objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[I]n the absence of a timely
filed objection, a district court need not conduct a 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 to 1983
addition)).
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution
Williamsburg (“FCI Williamsburg”) in Salters, South Carolina. Petitioner filed a petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging a hearing before a disciplinary hearing officer
(“DHO”), which resulted in a loss of forty-one days of good-time credits. The Magistrate
Judge provides a thorough recitation of the applicable facts and law in the Report, which
this Court incorporates by reference. In his objections, Petitioner contends that “[t]here
was simply no evidence to support a finding of guilt by the DHO,” and asserts that the
Magistrate Judge erred in recommending that Respondent’s Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted. ECF No. 28.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that inmates are entitled to
limited due process rights during prison disciplinary proceedings when a protected
liberty interest, such as the accumulation of good-time credits, is affected. Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). These due process rights include advance written

2

notice of the charges against him, a hearing, the right to call witnesses and present
evidence when doing so would not jeopardize institutional safety, and a written decision.
Id. at 564–71.

Furthermore, substantive due process is satisfied if the disciplinary

decision was based upon “some evidence.” Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). “This standard is met if ‘there was some evidence from
which the conclusion of the administrative tribunal could be deduced . . . .’” Id. (quoting
United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Comm’r of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 106 (1927)).
Here, Petitioner’s objections contend that there is no evidence to support the
DHO’s decision. However, the Magistrate Judge accurately recited the decision of the
DHO, which contains a detailed explanation of the specific evidence relied on to support
the DHO’s findings. ECF No. 25 at 10 (quoting ECF No. 1-1 at 5). This clearly satisfies
the “some evidence” standard necessary to comply with substantive due process.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report, and Respondent’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
August 9, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina

3