Reynolds v. Young

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: January 19, 2022
• Docket: 5:20-cv-00753
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

DONALD REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-00753

D.L. YOUNG and SIS OFFICER MANNING and SIS OFFICER SWEENY and OFFICER WISEMAN and OFFICER BANTON and OFFICER ANSLEY

Defendants.

ORDER

Pending are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, [Doc. 34], filed March 2, 2021, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. 50], filed April 5, 2021.1 This action was previously referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on September 30, 2021. [Doc. 97]. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ Motion and DENY Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court is required “to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

1 Also pending is Mr. Reynold’s Motion for Reconsideration, filed September 9, 2021. [Doc. 91]. Inasmuch as exhaustion is disputed and will proceed to discovery, that Motion is DENIED as moot. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 13, 2021, Defendants filed objections to the PF&R. [Doc. 98]. The Court OVERRULES Defendants’ objections as squarely foreclosed by binding precedent. Earle v. Shreves, 990 F.3d 774, 780 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting that federal inmates, even without a true Bivens cause of action, have “full access to remedial mechanisms established by the BOP, including suits in federal court for injunctive relief’) (quoting Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 74 (2001)); Ross v. Meese, 818 F.2d 1132, 1134-35 (4th Cir. 1987) (stating that, in a “Bivens type action,” “the district court had jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment respecting whether constitutional rights were violated and, if so, to order appropriate injunctive relief”). On October 14, 2021, the Court received Mr. Reynolds’s objections. [Doc. 100]. The adoption of the PF&R obviates the need to consider Mr. Reynolds’s specific objections inasmuch as the two are aligned on the material points raised in the objections. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s PF&R [Doc. 97], DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment [Doc. 34], and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 50]. The matter is RECOMMITTED to the magistrate judge pursuant to the terms of the original referral order. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party herein. ENTER: January 19, 2022 Key Qe oS Ry Frank W. Volk “nes United States District Judge