Correll v. The United States of America et al

Filing 9

ORDER adopting in part and denying in part 6 Report and Recommendation; denying 7 Objection to Report and Recommendation.; denying 8 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 3/31/15. (SLW)

f

I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FILED

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

MAR 3 1 2015

SOUTHERN DIVISION

~4,;;

******************************************************************************
*
CIV. 14-4168
TRAVIS EMORY CORRELL,
*
*
*
Plaintiff:
*
vs.
ORDER
*
*
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
*
ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General;
*
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.,
*
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons;
*
PAUL M. LAIRD, Regional Director,
*
Federal Bureau of Prisons; and
*
W. SCOTT WILLIS, Warden,
*
Federal Prison Camp Yankton,
*
*
Defendants.
*
*
******************************************************************************
Plaintiff Travis Emory Correll, an inmate at the Yankton Federal Prisons Camp, has filed a
civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and
1915A(b)(1 ). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff well presented

his claims. Unfortunately for Plaintiff: the law is well settled against Plaintiff on his claims and his
objections are without merit. The Court does understand that Mr. Correll never desired to be in the
RDAP program. Instead, he requests some early release program that would provide a sentence
benefit similar to the RDAP program. It might be good public policy to have the sentencing reduction
inducements in sentencing policy but there is no constitutional mandate to do so and the courts
cannot fashion such a policy.

After conducting an independent review of the record,

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

That the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Doc. 6, is
ADOPTED in part and denied in part by the Court in that the action is
dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and
Recommendation, Doc. 7, are DENIED.

2.

That Plaintiff's Complaint, Doc. 1, is dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

3.

That Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel, Doc. 8, is denied. The Plaintiff
has well represented his claims in the papers he has filed as a pro se litigant.
The claims are clearly presented but the law is settled and contrary to
Plaintiff's claims.

Dated this 31st dayofMarch, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

~(b•auw. l~~
ATTEST:
JOSEPH HAAS, CLERK

awrence L. Piersol
United States District Judge

I