Cunningham v. Drew et al

Filing 88

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Bristow Marchant; granting 67 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 11/22/2013.(cwhi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Eugene Jerome Cunningham, #02433-135, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)

v.

No. 9: 12-cv-2596-RMG

)
ORDER

)
Darlene Drew, Warden, FCr Bennettsville )
and G. Del ReI, Captain, FCI Bennettsville, )
)
Defendants.
)

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of the
Magistrate Judge recommending this Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment and that
this case be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 84).
Background

Plaintiff Eugene Jerome Cunningham, an inmate with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, brings
this action pro se pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau ofNarcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging violations of his constitutional rights by the named Defendants and
seeking monetary damages. (Dkt. No.1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he has been "denied jobs
in the commissary, recreation and other jobs [throughout] the Institution," while other inmates with the
same custody level are able to hold these jobs. (Dkt. No. 21). Plaintiff claims that his equal protection
rights are being violated by Defendants because he is similarly situated with these other medium
security inmates. Pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 636(b)(l) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) DSC, this
matter was automatically referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings.
Defendants filed an amended motion for summary judgment on August 1,2013. (Dkt. No. 67).
After receiving an extension of time to file his response, Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to
1

summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 82). On October 29, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued the present
R & R recommending the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 84).
Plaintiff then failed to file timely objections to the R & R.
Legal Standard

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. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This Court is charged with making a de novo
determination of those portions of the R&R 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)(1). This Court may also "receive further evidence or
recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id
Discussion

After review of the record and the R & R, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge applied
sound legal principles to the facts of this case and therefore agrees with and wholly adopts the R & R
as the order of the Court.
As noted by the Magistrate Judge, prison inmates have no federally protected right or interest
in any job while incarcerated. See James v. Jackson, No. 9:08-144-TLW, 2009 WL 291162, at *8
(D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2009) ("[I]nmates do not have a liberty interest derived from the due process clause,
nor do they have a property interest, in a specific job or any job at all while incarcerated"). However,
even absent this right or property interest, one may have an equal protection claim if they are singled
out for arbitrary and irrational treatment. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564

(2000).
In such an equal protection claim, to survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must first have
2

evidence to demonstrate that "he has been treated differently from others with whom he is similarly
situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination," and,
if so, the court must then determine whether the disparate treatment is "reasonably related to any
legitimate penological interest." Veney v. Wyche, 293 F.3d 726, 730-32 (4th Cir. 2002).
Here, Plaintiff has not presented any evidence that he has been treated differently than other
similarly situated prisoners. Documents presented by Plaintiff and Defendants show that the job
placement system is implemented on a prison-wide basis and Plaintiff does not argue that fact.
Instead, Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to be treated the same as other medium security inmates who
are not serving life sentences, which is contrary to prison policy. There is no constitutional right to be
distinguished in this way. See Slezak v. Evatt, 21 F.3d 590, 594 (4th Cir. 1994) (Constitution vests no
liberty interest in a particular custody status so long as the degree of confinement is within the
sentence imposed).
The evidence presented shows that Plaintiff is a medium security inmate servmg a life
sentence, and is being treated in the same manner as all other medium security inmates at FCI
Bennettsville who are serving life sentences.

Because Plaintiff has failed to show any evidence

showing that he is treated differently than other similarly situated inmates, his equal protection claim
fails. Furthermore, even if this showing had been satisfied, the prison job placement policy in question
was implemented for security purposes, a legitimate penological interest, and had nothing to do with
the Plaintiff individually.

Finally, Plaintiffs own evidence shows that his classification is in

compliance with prison policies and procedures and affects all prisoners of medium security who are
serving life sentences. Therefore, P1aintif:fs claim is without merit.

3

Conclusion

For the reasons given above, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's R & R in full. (Dkt. No.
84). Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. No. 67), is GRANTED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark Ge e
Court Judge
November l't., 2013
Charleston, South Carolina

4