Scott v. Williamson

S.D. Georgia

Scott v. Williamson

DecidedSeptember 30, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-00037

StatusUnknown

This text of Scott v. Williamson (Scott v. Williamson) 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

Scott v. Williamson, (S.D. Ga. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION Hi2] SeP 30 P 2:03 PIERRE C. SCOTT, ) ) SU. GA. Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) CV 321-037 ) MS. WILLIAMSON, Lt. Disciplinary Officer; ) WARDEN VANCE LAUGHLIN; JENNIFER) CLARK, State Contract Monitor; MR. ) LEMON, Cpt. Shift Supervisor/Classification ) Committee; DONOVAN HAMILTON, ) Deputy Warden Care & Treatment; MR. ) HORNE, Chief of Security/Classification ) Committee; JUANITA ADKINS, Unit ) Manager 700 Unit; MR. POWELL, Lead ) Investigator; MS. WESLEY, Case Manager _) 300 Unit/Classification Committee; MS. ) HAROLD, Assistant Chief of Security; MR.) DANFORT, Former Deputy Warden; JOY ) SCOTT, Grievance Coordinator; and, CPT. _ ) FAISON, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 12.) For the first time in his objections, Plaintiff alleges his placement in the Tier Segregation Program imposed atypical and significant hardships because of restrictions concerning visitation rights, phone privileges, shower access, computer and library usage, and hygienic products. (Id.)

While courts have the discretion to consider novel evidence, factual claims, and legal argument raised for the first time in an objection to an R&R, they are under no obligation to do so. Frone_v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 695 F. App’x 468, 472 (11th Cir. 2017) (concluding district judge has broad discretion in considering argument not presented to magistrate judge); Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (same). The Court chooses not to consider new allegations made after the R&R. Even if the Court did consider them, dismissal is still warranted because the alleged limitations do not constitute atypical or significant hardships. See Smith v. Deemer, 641 F. App’x 865, 868 (11th Cir. 2016) (noting hardship must be for significant period and severe relative to regular prison, not merely inconvenient). Accordingly, the Court OVERRRULES Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as its opinion, DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and CLOSES this case. SO ORDERED this_ Gayot Selabiran at Augusta, Georgia.

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 Hi2] SeP 30 P 2:03 PIERRE C. SCOTT, ) ) SU. GA. Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) CV 321-037 ) MS. WILLIAMSON, Lt. Disciplinary Officer; ) WARDEN VANCE LAUGHLIN; JENNIFER) CLARK, State Contract Monitor; MR. ) LEMON, Cpt. Shift Supervisor/Classification ) Committee; DONOVAN HAMILTON, ) Deputy Warden Care & Treatment; MR. ) HORNE, Chief of Security/Classification ) Committee; JUANITA ADKINS, Unit ) Manager 700 Unit; MR. POWELL, Lead ) Investigator; MS. WESLEY, Case Manager _) 300 Unit/Classification Committee; MS. ) HAROLD, Assistant Chief of Security; MR.) DANFORT, Former Deputy Warden; JOY ) SCOTT, Grievance Coordinator; and, CPT. _ ) FAISON, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 12.) For the first time in his objections, Plaintiff alleges his placement in the Tier Segregation Program imposed atypical and significant hardships because of restrictions concerning visitation rights, phone privileges, shower access, computer and library usage, and hygienic products. (Id.)

While courts have the discretion to consider novel evidence, factual claims, and legal argument raised for the first time in an objection to an R&R, they are under no obligation to do so. Frone_v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 695 F. App’x 468, 472 (11th Cir. 2017) (concluding district judge has broad discretion in considering argument not presented to magistrate judge); Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009) (same). The Court chooses not to consider new allegations made after the R&R. Even if the Court did consider them, dismissal is still warranted because the alleged limitations do not constitute atypical or significant hardships. See Smith v. Deemer, 641 F. App’x 865, 868 (11th Cir. 2016) (noting hardship must be for significant period and severe relative to regular prison, not merely inconvenient). Accordingly, the Court OVERRRULES Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as its opinion, DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and CLOSES this case. SO ORDERED this_ Gayot Selabiran at Augusta, Georgia.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Scott v. Williamson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-williamson-gasd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack