From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adamson v. McNeil

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division
Dec 12, 2008
Case No. 3:08cv231/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2008)

Summary

finding no constitutionally protected liberty interest in the change of inmate's classification from CM-III to CM-II

Summary of this case from Spaulding v. Bass

Opinion

Case No. 3:08cv231/RV/EMT.

December 12, 2008


ORDER


This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and recommendation dated November 20, 2008 (Doc. 25). The parties have been furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all timely filed objections.

Having considered the report and recommendation, and any timely filed objections thereto timely filed, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 18) is GRANTED.

3. The habeas petition challenging the disciplinary decision issued on April 29, 2008, Log #119-081064, at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

Adamson v. McNeil

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division
Dec 12, 2008
Case No. 3:08cv231/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2008)

finding no constitutionally protected liberty interest in the change of inmate's classification from CM-III to CM-II

Summary of this case from Spaulding v. Bass
Case details for

Adamson v. McNeil

Case Details

Full title:R. CASPER ADAMSON, Petitioner, v. WALTER A. McNEIL, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

Date published: Dec 12, 2008

Citations

Case No. 3:08cv231/RV/EMT (N.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2008)

Citing Cases

Spaulding v. Bass

Mr. Spaulding does not have a protected interest in his classification status. Adamson v. McNeil, No.…

Fisher v. Rhoden

Under these circumstances, his placement in restraints is “not sufficient to trigger constitutional due…