Redmond vs. Kern, et al.,
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER adopting 46 Report and Recommendation and granting 44 Motion for Summary Judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Signed by District Judge Marcia A. Crone on 3/19/19. (tkd, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
LESLIE REDMOND,
Plaintiff,
versus
E. KERN, et al.,
Defendants.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-70
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Leslie Redmond, a prisoner formerly confined at FCI Beaumont, proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis, filed a Bivens-type action against defendants Richard Dortch, Donald
Hadnot, T. Satcher, D. Spann, and FNU Tenner.1
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court.
The Magistrate Judge recommends defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies be granted (docket entry no. 46).
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, and pleadings. Plaintiff
filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (docket entry no. 47). This
requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
1
In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the
Supreme Court recognized an individual’s right to recover damages from federal officials for violation of
constitutional rights.
After careful consideration, the court finds plaintiff’s objections are without merit. The
competent summary judgment evidence establishes that plaintiff did not properly exhaust his
administrative remedies. As outlined by the Magistrate Judge, the only administrative remedy
plaintiff fully exhausted is a June 25, 2015 request which concerned the disciplinary hearing
appeal that arose out of the August 1, 2014 interaction with Defendant Hadnot. Specifically,
plaintiff complains of the following in his Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal:
I’m appealing Incident Report #2612462 DHO Officer Ms. S.L. Lacy,
failed to conduct an Impartial Investigation as evidence [sic] by the fact [Lt.
D. Hadnot, ignored the BOP’s own policy by entering “SHU cell alone
with the express intention to commit bodily harm Inmate Redmond was
restrained “handcuffed and facing the wall when attacked by Lt. D.
Hadnot]. No investigation was done by S.L. Lacy, as to why? was Lt. D.
Hadnot, forcing Incompatible Inmates to house with each other in “Special
Housing Unit”,? Redmond has set forth argument for relief in attachment
& addendum of exhibits copies of Incident/DHO Report Appeals. To add
insult to injury (excessive force), Redmond has been denied his
Fundamental Due Process Rights, as per Title 42 USC § 1997
Institutionalized Persons Act. as evidence [sic] by the fact, The MidAtlantic Regional Office Regional Director J.F. Caraway, remanded the
incident report to the institution for a rehearing. On December 16, 2014,
see response attached dated Jan 30, 2015. However, Redmond has not had
a rehearing, see P.S. §5270.09 & CFR § 542.18 Response Time. The
Central Office has to concede Redmond’s due process rights have been
blatantly violated, not to mention to the BOP Employees Standard of
Employee Conduct violations, failure to follow Superior orders, see
attachment Relief Requested expungement of Record/Incident restoration
of GCT and reclassification, immediately.
Plaintiff’s Exhibits, pg. 7 (docket entry no. 47); Defendants’ Exhibits, pg. 13 (docket entry no.
44-1). This administrative remedy clearly focused on the DHO hearing and the actions of the
DHO, and the BOP’s response to plaintiff focused solely on the (later expunged) incident report
that charged plaintiff with a violation of BOP policies. On August 7, 2014, the BOP received a
BP-9 from plaintiff regarding the alleged assault on August 1, 2014. Plaintiff’s appeal of this
2
administrative remedy to the Regional Director was rejected and plaintiff did not further appeal
the administrative remedy relating to Defendant Hadnot’s alleged actions. There is no mention
of defendants Tenner, Satcher, Spann or Dortch in any of these administrative remedies. Plaintiff
has not properly exhausted his administrative remedies.
ORDER
Accordingly, the objections of the plaintiff are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate
.
Judge’s recommendations.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 19th day of March, 2019.
________________________________________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?