United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING
THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND
DISMISSING THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pro se plaintiff, Raheim Doleman, filed this
civil action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This civil action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge James E. Seibert under Local Rule of Prisoner
Litigation Procedure 2, and then reassigned to United States
Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone. The plaintiff then filed
an amended complaint against the above-named defendants.ECF
Judge James P. Mazzone issued a report and recommendation
(ECF No. 34) recommending that the plaintiff's complaint
be dismissed with prejudice as having been filed in violation
of the statute of limitations. The plaintiff did not file
objections to the report and recommendation.
following reasons, this Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the report
and recommendation in its entirety and DISMISSES the
plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.
plaintiff, Raheim Doleman (“Doleman”), alleges in
his amended complaint (ECF No. 26) that on or about October
2013, he approached several different correctional officers
at the Eastern Regional Jail asking to be placed in
protective custody because he was having problems on Pod A-1.
The plaintiff asserts that after several written and verbal
requests, he was finally placed in protective custody.
However, the plaintiff maintains that two weeks later, Jim
Oxford and Lt. Tate came to the segregation unit and advised
him that he would be moved back to general population. The
plaintiff claims that he objected repeatedly and asked them
to leave him there. The plaintiff claims that Lt. Tate
replied that “he could walk there or be dragged there;
the decision was his.” ECF No. 26 at p. 18. The
plaintiff indicates he was then placed on Pod A-4, where he
was extorted and harassed again. The plaintiff alleges that
on December 24, 2013, he was viciously attacked and held down
by three inmates, while one of the inmates sexually abused
and raped him. Plaintiff maintains that he contacted the West
Virginia State Police and reported the rape. Plaintiff
further alleges that he was taken to the Martinsburg City
Hospital where rape kit was performed. The plaintiff contends
that the “State Police and Correctional Officers wanted
me to tell who it was that raped me, I could not tell them; I
was scared for my life! I tried to explain that the people
that raped me knew me and my family and had large contacts on
the street.” ECF No. 26 at 18. In addition, the
plaintiff asserts that he was denied psychological treatment
because he would not identify his rapist. In summary, the
plaintiff alleges that the various defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his safety and violated his
Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment and his Fourth Amendment right to due process. For
relief, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an
immediate evaluation by a licensed Trauma Psychiatrist that
specializes in the field of PTSD/RAPE and a discharge from
his sentence and incarceration. In addition, plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages.
to 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.
As to findings where no objections were made, such findings
and recommendations will be upheld unless they are
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A). Because the petitioner did not file any
objections to the report and recommendation, the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations will be upheld
unless they are “clearly erroneous or contrary to
law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
report and recommendation, the magistrate judge found that
Section 1983 does not contain an express statute of
limitations; therefore, federal courts apply the forum
state's statute of limitations for personal injury claims
and its corresponding tolling rules. ECF No. 34 at 4. Thus,
timeliness is determined based upon the relevant state
limitations period for personal injury actions. Id.
Specifically, the magistrate judge noted that in this case,
the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are clearly
outside the two-year applicable statute of limitations.
Id. at 5. The magistrate judge concluded that the
complaint clearly states that the events giving rise to
plaintiff's complaint occurred in 2013, and that based on
plaintiff's alleged actions, it is clear that he was
aware of his claim at that time. Id. The magistrate
judge also noted that in the instant case, the plaintiff did
not initiate the grievance process until September 27, 2016,
well after the two-year statute of limitations had expired.
Id. at 7. Therefore, the grievance process cannot
serve to toll the limitations period, and this complaint is
due to be dismissed as untimely. Id. Thus, the
magistrate judge concluded that this action was filed in
violation of the statute of limitations and recommended that
it be dismissed with prejudice.
review, this Court finds no clear error in the determinations
of the magistrate judge and thus upholds his recommendation.
reasons set forth above, the report and recommendation of the
magistrate judge (ECF No. 34) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
Accordingly, the ...