From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Braxton v. Wendt

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, at Martinsburg Division
Mar 24, 2006
Civil Action No. 1:05CV18 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 24, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:05CV18.

March 24, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On this day the above styled case came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert, dated August 22, 2005. The plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation on September 6, 2005. After conducting a de novo reviewing the above, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ORDERED adopted.

The Plaintiff's objections essentially restate his original complaints and provide additional information regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies in his case. The court finds that the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not essential to the disposition of this matter or the Court's review of the Plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted with respect to his allegations of Eighth Amendment Constitutional Violations. The Court adopts the evaluative standard as set forth in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. Under the applicable standards, the Plaintiff does not have to suffer actual harms to sustain an Eighth Amendment action, however, in this case the Plaintiff did not show that he faced any true threat or harm. The merel potential for some speculated type of threat does not demonstrate deliberate indifference or the violation of any duty by prison officials.

Plaintiff further fails to show that any alleged retaliatory actions interfered with his constitutionally protected rights. Specifically, Plaintiff's work assignments and visitation allowance are not constitutionally protected rights. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's access to the courts was not compromised, as demonstrated by his comprehensive filings in this action.

As cited in the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff has failed to make the required showing with respect to the factors necessary for the Court to grant injunctive relief in this case.

The Court accordingly ORDERS that the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Document No. 6) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint (Document No. 1) and Amended Complaint (Document No. 8) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE based upon the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914A. Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief and/or Temporary Restraining Order (Document No. 7) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Change of Venue (Document No. 13) is DENIED as MOOT. It is further ORDERED that this action be and is hereby STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.

The Clerk is directed to transmit true copies of this Order to the Plaintiff and all counsel of record herein.


Summaries of

Braxton v. Wendt

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, at Martinsburg Division
Mar 24, 2006
Civil Action No. 1:05CV18 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 24, 2006)
Case details for

Braxton v. Wendt

Case Details

Full title:ULYSSES BRAXTON, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN KEVIN WENDT; A.R. TEMPLES…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, at Martinsburg Division

Date published: Mar 24, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:05CV18 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 24, 2006)