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.

Buford v. Gilley

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

August 25, 2017

DR. GEORGE WILLIE BUFORD, III, Plaintiff,
v.
CAPTAIN J. GILLEY, THOMAS McGEE, SMU Hearing Administrator, T. LANE, Discipline Hearing Officer, LT. WARE, SHU Lieutenant, C/O BISHOFF, SHU No.1 and J. CANFIELD, S.I.S. Lieutenant, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. Procedural History

         The pro se[1] plaintiff, Dr. George Willie Buford, III, filed this civil action asserting four claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) . All four claims concern the plaintiff's incarceration at USP Hazelton. The action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble for initial review and report and recommendation pursuant to Local Rule of Prisoner Litigation Procedure 2.

         Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge issued a Roseboro notice to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff filed his response to the defendants' motion. The magistrate judge then filed a report and recommendation recommending that this Court grant the defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended that all claims regarding the plaintiff's designation to the Special Management Unit ("SMU") and all claims against the defendants in their official capacities be dismissed with prejudice. The magistrate judge recommended that all claims regarding the plaintiff's placement in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU"), the conditions of Cell 102 in the SHU, and alleged interference with any contractual agreement with Monongalia General Hospital be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

         The magistrate judge informed the parties that if they objected to any portion of the report and recommendation, they were required to file written objections within 14 days after being served with copies of the report. Neither party filed objections.

         II. Facts

         First, the plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of due process and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when he was assigned to the SH U.Second, the plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of due process when he was assigned to the SMU. Third, the plaintiff alleges that the conditions of USP Hazelton SHU Cell 102 subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment. Finally, the plaintiff alleges that several USP Hazelton staff members interfered with his contractual obligations in a private contract between himself and Monongalia General Hospital.

         The defendants' motion to dismiss explains that the plaintiff was placed in the USP Hazelton SHU only after staff members found a contact list in the plaintiff's cell containing personal phone numbers, email addresses, and other personal information of certain staff members. Defendant Lieutenant Jamie Canfield ordered that the plaintiff be placed in the SHU under Administrative Detention status until the contact list was fully investigated. After the plaintiff was moved to the SHU, staff found two handcrafted weapons and tobacco in the plaintiff's original cell. The plaintiff was then notified that a hearing would be held to determine whether he should be assigned to the SMU. The plaintiff did not attend the hearing, but defendant Thomas McGee, a Discipline Hearing Officer, recommended at the hearing that the plaintiff be assigned to the SMU.

         The defendants' motion to dismiss further explains that, while assigned to the SHU, the plaintiff was permitted to self-carry and self-administer medication for his hypertension. However, the plaintiff was not permitted to self-carry or self-administer his other medications, which a health services staff member had to distribute to him. The plaintiff did not always cooperate with the testing required for him to receive those other medications. USP Hazelton did not provide the plaintiff with a back brace or special shoes and insoles because those medical devices can be used to fashion weapons or to assist suicide. The defendants also note that the plaintiff filed no administrative grievances related to the condition of USP Hazelton SHU Cell 102 or his purported contractual agreement with Monongalia General Hospital.

         In response, the plaintiff restates his original four claims and argues that there are genuine issues of disputed material facts sufficient to deny summary judgment. For relief, the plaintiff seeks a monetary award with attorneys' fees, treble damages, and the closing of the SMU until such time that it complies with the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA").

         For the reasons that follow, this Court finds that the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge should be adopted in its entirety.

         Ill. Applicable Law

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's recommendation to which objection is timely made. Because the plaintiff did not file any objections to the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations will be upheld unless ...


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.