Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McFadden v. Stirling

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division

October 30, 2017

Bernard McFadden, Plaintiff,
v.
Brian Stirling, Director, and South Carolina Department of Corrections, Defendant.

          ORDER AND OPINION

         Plaintiff Bernard McFadden (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this action seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. (ECF No. 1.) This matter is before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (ECF No. 8), filed February 23, 2016, recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed with prejudice. After considering Plaintiff's Objections (“Objections”) (ECF No. 11), filed March 9, 2017, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 8) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1).

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         The court adopts the findings of the Magistrate Judge's Report as its own and only relays herein the facts necessary to decide the issues below.

         On October 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff contends that his exclusion from a work release program was in retaliation for previous litigation and was racially motivated. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff further contends that South Carolina Department of Corrections' (“SCDC”) Director Stirling intentionally designed Policy OP-21.04, Section 49.1[1] in order to “retaliate by selectively allowing work release for some inmates while discriminating against other inmates.” (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff claims that his exclusion from the work release program and the policy facilitating the same are a violation of his civil rights and thus give rise to an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         The Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court, which has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court reviews de novo only those portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which specific objections are filed, and reviews those portions which are not objected to - including those portions to which only “general and conclusory” objections have been made - for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         III. ANALYSIS

         The Report was filed February 23, 2016. (ECF No. 8.)

         Plaintiff filed his Objections to the Report on March 9, 2016. (ECF No. 11.) The court perceives that Plaintiff made three specific objections to the Report:

1. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Report's characterization of Defendants as immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
2. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Report's assertion that Plaintiff's claims have previously been adjudicated.
3. Plaintiff specifically objects to the Report's assertion that Plaintiff claimed a constitutional right to work release as opposed to claiming a lack of equal treatment.

(ECF No. 11.)

         1. Defendants' Eleventh Amendment ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.