Pendergrass v. Brunson
ORDER ADOPTING 35 Report and Recommendations; It is therefore ORDERED that only the Defendant, U.S. Marshals Service, is DISMISSED without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)(dismiss for failure to state a claim). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 7/6/2012. (mbro, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Douglas Anthony Pendergrass,
Captain T.W. Brunson,
and U.S. Marshal Service,
C/A No. 6:11-1384-TMC-KFM
OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff, Douglas Anthony Pendergrass (“Plaintiff”), a federal prisoner proceeding
pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., all
pre-trial proceedings were referred to a Magistrate Judge.
On October 5, 2011,
Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report")
recommending that the court dismiss the Defendant, U.S. Marshals Service, from this
case without prejudice. (Dkt. # 35). The Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff a notice
advising him of his right to file objections to the Report. (Dkt. # 35 at 5). Plaintiff filed
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report on October 19, 2011. (Dkt. # 45).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The
recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (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
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the court
need not conduct a de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed
findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In
the absence of a timely filed, specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are
reviewed only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
As noted above, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report which the court has
carefully reviewed. However, the Plaintiff’s objections provide no basis for this court to
deviate from the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition.
The objections are
non-specific, unrelated to the dispositive portions of the Report or merely restate
In his objections, Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to name an unknown
marshal as a Defendant. Liberally construing this as a motion to amend, the court
denies this motion as futile.
The Fourth Circuit has specifically stated that “[t]he federal constitution itself
vests no liberty interest in inmates retaining or receiving any particular security or
custody status ‘[a]s long as the [challenged] conditions or degree of confinement . . . is
within the sentence imposed . . . And is not otherwise violative of the Constitution.”
Slezak v. Evatt, 21 F.3d 590, 594 (4th Cir.1994). See also Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S.
472 (1995) (holding liberty interests for prisoners are “limited to freedom from restraint
which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise
to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes atypical
and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”).
Inmates also do not have any constitutional right to be incarcerated in any particular
prison, jail, or confinement facility of any particular security level. Meachum v. Fano, 427
U.S. 215, 223–24 (1976). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s amendment is futile.
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 only the Defendant, U.S. Marshals Service, is DISMISSED without
prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)(dismiss for failure to state a claim).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
July 6, 2012
Anderson, South Carolina
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.
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?