Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.:17-574-BAJ-RLB
06-13-2018
RODNEY WASHINGTON (#298775) v. JAMES LEBLANC
RULING AND ORDER
Before this Court is the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Report and Recommendation addresses Plaintiff's application for declaratory judgement and injunctive relief against Defendant. Plaintiff raises one claim for post-conviction relief, to wit: Plaintiff's confinement violates his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 because he was transferred to Louisiana State Penitentiary without a valid commitment order (Doc. 4 at p. 2).
The Report and Recommendation notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen (14) days from the date they received the Report and Recommendation to file written objections to the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations therein (Doc. 4 at p. 1). Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5).
As the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff argues that he is being confined without a valid commitment order, which violates his constitutional rights under § 1983. (Doc. 4 at p. 1). Plaintiff's claim seeks relief that is obtainable only through an application for a writ of habeas corpus. (Id.at p. 3). Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a federal constitutional claim cognizable under § 1983, and to the extent Plaintiff's complaint could be construed as bringing a state law claim (because Plaintiff cites an number of state law cases in addition to federal law), the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (see id. at p. 4).
Plaintiff's objection primarily restates the arguments of his initial complaint and is therefore unpersuasive. The Magistrate Judge correctly interpreted the holding in Meachum v. Fano, where the United States Supreme Court held that the transferring of prison inmate is within the discretion of prison officials and does not invoke the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. 427 U.S. 215, 228 (1976). Moreover, Plaintiff is not being deprived of his access to the courts by this ruling. (Doc. 5 at p. 1). To the contrary, the Court independently reviewed Plaintiff's claim and found that it lacks merit.
Having carefully considered the underlying complaint, the instant motion, and related filings, the Court approves the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and hereby adopts its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation.
Accordingly,
IT IS SO ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion herein.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Declaratory Judgement and Injunctive Relief (Doc. 1-2) is DENIED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 13th day of June, 2018.
/s/ _________
BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA