Rodriquez v. Oberman

Filing 19

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 10/18/2013.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
BEAUFORT DIVISION
Jonathan M. Rodriguez,
Plaintiff,
v.
Bruce Oberman, Supervisor,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 9:12-cv-01832-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff Jonathan M. Rodriguez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that violations his constitutional rights on numerous occasions. This
matter is before the Court after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant.1 In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Court summarily dismiss Plaintiff’s action against Defendant without prejudice and without service
of process for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against Defendant.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed this § 1983 action in June 2012, alleging various violations of his
constitutional rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Compl., ECF No. 1. In
his allegations, he names several employees of the South Carolina Department of Corrections;
however, the only Defendant in this action is Bruce Oberman, who allegedly is the supervisor of the
Administrative Segregation Unit (“ASU”) at the Lee Correctional Institution. All of the violations

1

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (D.S.C.), this matter was
referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial handling. The Magistrate Judge’s review of Plaintiff’s
complaint was conducted pursuant to the screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and
1915A. The Court is mindful of its duty to liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants. See
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978); but see Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775
F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).
1

apparently stem from Plaintiff’s placement in protective custody after he renounced his affiliation
with a gang. Because the allegations are adequately represented in the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the
Court need not elaborate further for the purpose of this order.2 The Magistrate Judge issued is R&R
on July 11, 2012, R&R, ECF No. 11, and Plaintiff filed timely and extensive objections, Pl.’s Objs.,
ECF No. 13. The matter is now before the Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 R&R 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).
The right to de novo review may be waived by the failure to file timely objections. Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The Court need not conduct a de novo review when a
party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the [C]ourt to a specific
error in the [M]agistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. Moreover, in the absence
of objections to the R&R, the Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the
recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). However, in the absence of
objections, the Court must “ ‘satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.’ ” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d
310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
2

Plaintiff objects to several facts recited in the R&R by the Magistrate Judge, including several
dates. See Pl.’s Objs 7. The Court, however, has reviewed his complaint and finds that the
Magistrate Judge’s representation of facts, to the extent it differs from Plaintiff’s, does not alter this
Court’s ultimate ruling. As such, any such error is harmless and any relevant objection is overruled.
2

DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge recommends summarily dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint, concluding
that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Oberman under § 1983. Specifically, the Magistrate
Judge points out that Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant actually committed many of the
violations of which he complains. In other words, Oberman’s connection to Plaintiff’s alleged
constitutional injuries arises from the mere fact that he was the ASU supervisor. Along that line,
the Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff fails to plead sufficient facts to support a claim that
Defendant is liable as a supervisor under § 1983. Finally, the Magistrate Judge reports that Plaintiff
fails to state a claim against Oberman in the “few allegations that directly reference Oberman.”
These allegations include Oberman’s presence at Plaintiff’s protective custody board meeting,
Oberman’s failure to transfer Plaintiff as he requested, Oberman’s failure to process Plaintiff’s
grievances, Oberman’s retaliation against Plaintiff, and Oberman’s connection to a denial of
religious materials and a hostage taking situation. R&R 5–9.
In response, Plaintiff filed extensive objections to the R&R. To the extent Plaintiff does not
raise new facts to support his claims, which is improper in objections, he largely rehashes the claims
he raised in his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (providing that objections must be to the
“proposed findings and recommendations” of the Magistrate Judge); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)
(same). The Court, however, may only consider objections to the R&R that direct it to a specific
error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 n.4 (4th Cir. 1984);
Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-47 nn.1-3 (4th Cir. 1985). Again, “courts have . . . held de
novo review to be unnecessary in . . . situations when a party makes general and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the [Magistrate Judge’s] proposed

3

findings and recommendation.” Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47. Thus, the Court shall conduct a de novo
review of those objections it deems proper.
First, Plaintiff argues in his objections that it was Oberman who approved the decision to
return him to the general population from protective custody. Pl.’s Objs. 1–2.

However, even if

any decision of the protective custody board resulted in cruel and unusual punishment,3 Plaintiff
does not allege in his complaint that it was Oberman’s decision to make. Second, Plaintiff notes
that he was told by officers that the retaliation against him was directed by Oberman as a result of
Plaintiff’s religion and filing of grievances. Id. at 3–4. He adds that he should have received a
disciplinary hearing before he was placed in ASU’s “Supermax.” Id. The undersigned, however,
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s complaint does not adequately allege retaliation by
Oberman or state a proper claim for his placement in Supermax, as the classification of prisoners for
placement purposes is within the discretion of prison officials. See R&R 7–8. Finally, Plaintiff
objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Oberman refused to give Plaintiff his religious
materials. According to Plaintiff’s own allegations, however, Oberman’s position was that Plaintiff
should have the materials after he completed the proper paperwork for them. See Compl. 10.
Therefore, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to be proper, and Plaintiff’s
objections, to the extent they are proper, are overruled.
CONCLUSION
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the entire record, including Plaintiff’s complaint, the
R&R, objections to the R&R, and applicable law.

For the reasons stated above and by the

Magistrate Judge, the Court hereby overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R.
3

The Magistrate Judge, of course, properly noted that Plaintiff does not allege he was ever returned
to the general population, where his safety would be at risk.
4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
October 18, 2013

5