United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
ORDER AND OPINION
action arises from the rescission of pro se
Plaintiff Dawud Rahim's parole in February 2015. The
matter before the court is a review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”).
(ECF No. 8.) For the reasons below, the court
ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report
(ECF No. 8) and DISMISSES Plaintiff's
Complaint (ECF No. 1).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
March 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that
Defendants Jerry B. Adger, Ray Patton, Jr., and Thomas W.
Nicholson rescinded his parole without notice. (ECF No. 1.)
On March 28, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report,
recommending that the court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
with prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
(ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report
on April 12, 2019. (ECF No. 10.)
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no
presumptive weight. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S.
261, 270-71 (1976). The responsibility to make a final
determination remains with the court. Id. at 271. As
such, the court is charged with making de novo
determinations of those portions of the Report to which
specific objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In the
absence of specific objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report, the court is not required to give any explanation for
adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a
timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a
de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v.
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315
(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory
committee's note). Thus, the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
court is required to interpret pro se documents
liberally and will hold those documents to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by attorneys. See Gordon v.
Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). See also
Hardin v. United States, C / A N o. 7:12-cv-0118-GRA,
2012 WL 3945314, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 10, 2012). Additionally,
pro se documents must be construed in a favorable
manner, “no matter how inartfully pleaded, to see
whether they could provide a basis for relief.”
Garrett v. Elko, No. 95-7939, 1997 WL 457667, at *1
(4th Cir. Aug. 12, 1997). Although pro se documents
are liberally construed by federal courts, “[t]he
‘special judicial solicitude' with which a district
court should view pro se complaints does not
transform the court into an advocate.” Weller v.
Dep't of Soc. Servs. for Balt., 901 F.2d 387, 391
(4th Cir. 1990).
claims that Defendants breached “the established
contract of conditional parole.” (ECF No. 8 at 2.) The
Magistrate Judge determined that “Plaintiff has no
state-created liberty interest in parole, even where he is
granted parole and it is later rescinded.” (ECF No. 8
at 4 (citing Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14, 17
(1981)).) As such, “[b]ecause Plaintiff has no
state-created liberty interest in his parole, no process is
due.” (Id.) Plaintiff “objects to [the
Report's] comments that if he was granted parole and it
was later rescinded without any time [of] notice that he does
not have any state-created liberties interest in parole of
impending state actions.” (ECF No. 10 at 3.) Plaintiff
points to the South Carolina Board of Parole and Pardons,
Policies and Procedures Manual and asserts that:
“conducting such business [a rescission of parole]
without giving parties notification to establish a hearing of
rebuttal that would create the Fourteenth Amendment violation
of due process under the parole boards on policies and
procedural manual quorum.” (ECF No. 10 at 3.) The court
finds that Plaintiff's objection merely rehashes his
previous claim that an “inmate has a state-created
liberty interest under the privilege of making parole. The
rescinding of such without notification is clearly a
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights and
would constitute the judgment requested in the original
pleadings.” (ECF Nos. 1 at 12; 10 at 4.) It is
well-established that “[t]here is no constitutional or
inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally
released before the expiration of a valid sentence.”
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Corr.
Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). Therefore, the court
finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.
reasons above, the court ACCEPTS the
Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 8) and
DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No.
1) with prejudice.