Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-04146
10-12-2018
JAMES LUCAS, Plaintiff, v. JASON COLLINS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On August 30, 2018, Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings and Recommendations [ECF No. 7] ("PF&R"). The PF&R recommends the court DISMISS this matter for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. On September 10, 2018, the plaintiff timely submitted his objections to the PF&R [ECF No. 8]. For the reasons that follow, the court OVERRULES the plaintiff's objections and ADOPTS the PF&R in full.
I. Facts
Because the plaintiff makes no objections to the PF&R's factual background, the court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in full.
II. Legal Standard
A district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, this court need not conduct a de novo review when a party "makes 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). When reviewing portions of the report de novo, this court will consider the fact that the plaintiff is acting pro se, and his pleadings will be accorded liberal construction. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291, 1295 (4th Cir. 1978).
III. Discussion
The plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge failed to mention "the government's failure to post prison rules and regulations" so that the plaintiff may become IRPP compliant so that he may have band room privileges. For support, the plaintiff cites the following passage from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia:
"IRPP" stands for "Individual Reentry Program Plan." See Longwell v. Ballard, No. 11-0912, 2012 WL 5232243, at *1 (W. Va. Oct. 19, 2012). --------
[T]he first requirement imposed on a government agency responsible for prisoners, by the federal constitution's Fourteenth Amendment and our state due process clause in W. Va. Const. art. II, § 10 is publication of rules and regulations to apprise them of the conduct required for them to earn good time credits.State ex rel. Gillespie v. Kendrick, 265 S.E.2d 537, 542 (W. Va. 1980). The plaintiff also faults the Magistrate Judge for "rambl[ing] on for several pages on . . . 'liberty interests' and the courts exercising restraint in supervising the minutiae of prison life."
The Magistrate Judge went on at length on liberty interests because without a liberty interest, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not apply. See U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV, § 1 (The Fourteenth Amendment bars states from "depriv[ing] any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."). To be sure, prisoners, including the plaintiff, have liberty interests in good time credits, which is why prison officials are required to publish "rules and regulations to apprise [prisoners] of the conduct required for them to earn good time credits." Gillespie, 265 S.E.2d at 542.
As explained by the Magistrate Judge, however, inmates have no liberty interest in band room privileges. Unlike good time credits, there is no statutory entitlement to band room privileges. Moreover, band room privileges do not implicate freedom from restraint that "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
Being that there is no liberty interest in band room privileges, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not apply. Prison officials are therefore not required by the Fourteenth Amendment to post rules on how to become IRRP Compliant so that inmates may enjoy band room privileges. And because the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause does not apply, the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
I digress to remark that the serious business of judging sometimes requires me to sound just plain silly in treating with all seriousness a constitutional claim for band room privileges.
IV. Conclusion
Therefore, the court OVERRULES the plaintiff's objections [ECF No. 8], ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's PF&R [ECF No. 7], and DISMISSES the plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] with prejudice.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: October 12, 2018
/s/_________
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE