HOBBS v. WHEELER CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

S.D. Georgia

HOBBS v. WHEELER CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

DecidedMarch 31, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00140

StatusUnknown

This text of HOBBS v. WHEELER CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (HOBBS v. WHEELER CORRECTIONAL FACILITY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

HOBBS v. WHEELER CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, (S.D. Ga. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □ FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA... DUBLIN DIVISION es □□ QUADRAY HOBBS, ) Plaintiff, ) □□ ) v. ) CV 322-140 ) WHEELER CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; □ ) JENNIFER CLARK, Contract Monitor; ) S GIVENS, Kitchen Stewardess; ) D ROYAL, Chief of Security; ) ROTUNDA KEMP, Case Manager; ) OFFICER SHERROD; and ) LT. L. JOHNSON, Grievance Coordinator, ) ) Defendants )

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 21.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Plaintiff provided dishonest information about his prior filing history and failed to state a claim upon which relief may granted. (Doc. no. 19.) Plaintiff does not dispute he filed the undisclosed case identified by the Magistrate Judge but instead claims he was unaware he did so. (Doc. no. 21, p. 1.) His excuses are unavailing. See Shelton v. Rohrs, 406 F. App’x 340, 341 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal for failure to disclose filing history even when plaintiff did not remember filing lawsuits and explained records were unavailable to him in prison).

Regardless, even if Plaintiff had not been dishonest about his prior filing history, as the Magistrate Judge also explained, the case is subject to dismissal because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. no. 19, pp. 6-12.) The new facts alleged in Plaintiff's objections do not disturb the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. While Plaintiff

now attributes his lack of access to the law library to retaliation by Defendants Royal and Clark, his conclusory, factual allegations still do not show anything other than his personal belief Defendants retaliated against him. Similarly, his new factual allegations against Defendant Johnson, who he did not include in his statement of claim initially, only show her saying, “I told you I was going to get you for threatening officer/staff” (Doc. no. 21, p. 2.) Without anymore, Plaintiff’s short allegations fail to show whatever action Defendant Johnson took was in retaliation of protected speech, as is required for a First Amendment claim. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES all objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DENIES the Motion Requesting Final Judgment, (doc. no. 18), DISMISSES this case without prejudice, and CLOSES this civil action. SO ORDERED this 3 Mert March, 2023, at Augusta, Georgia. hh, dé. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □ FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA... DUBLIN DIVISION es □□ QUADRAY HOBBS, ) Plaintiff, ) □□ ) v. ) CV 322-140 ) WHEELER CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; □ ) JENNIFER CLARK, Contract Monitor; ) S GIVENS, Kitchen Stewardess; ) D ROYAL, Chief of Security; ) ROTUNDA KEMP, Case Manager; ) OFFICER SHERROD; and ) LT. L. JOHNSON, Grievance Coordinator, ) ) Defendants )

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 21.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice because Plaintiff provided dishonest information about his prior filing history and failed to state a claim upon which relief may granted. (Doc. no. 19.) Plaintiff does not dispute he filed the undisclosed case identified by the Magistrate Judge but instead claims he was unaware he did so. (Doc. no. 21, p. 1.) His excuses are unavailing. See Shelton v. Rohrs, 406 F. App’x 340, 341 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming dismissal for failure to disclose filing history even when plaintiff did not remember filing lawsuits and explained records were unavailable to him in prison).

Regardless, even if Plaintiff had not been dishonest about his prior filing history, as the Magistrate Judge also explained, the case is subject to dismissal because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. no. 19, pp. 6-12.) The new facts alleged in Plaintiff's objections do not disturb the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. While Plaintiff

now attributes his lack of access to the law library to retaliation by Defendants Royal and Clark, his conclusory, factual allegations still do not show anything other than his personal belief Defendants retaliated against him. Similarly, his new factual allegations against Defendant Johnson, who he did not include in his statement of claim initially, only show her saying, “I told you I was going to get you for threatening officer/staff” (Doc. no. 21, p. 2.) Without anymore, Plaintiff’s short allegations fail to show whatever action Defendant Johnson took was in retaliation of protected speech, as is required for a First Amendment claim. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES all objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DENIES the Motion Requesting Final Judgment, (doc. no. 18), DISMISSES this case without prejudice, and CLOSES this civil action. SO ORDERED this 3 Mert March, 2023, at Augusta, Georgia. hh, dé. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

HOBBS v. WHEELER CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobbs-v-wheeler-correctional-facility-gasd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack