VEGA v. RUNYON

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GIOVANNI KALI VEGA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 4:23cv186-MW/MAF

J. RUNYON,

Defendants. ___________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 21, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 26. Plaintiff raises several arguments, but none help his claim. First, nothing in Plaintiff’s objections rebuts the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned finding that Plaintiff falls short of demonstrating a substantial threat of an irreparable injury. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations regarding the potential threat he faces from Defendant at the new correctional facility are insufficient to establish a substantial threat of an irreparable injury. Second, nothing in Plaintiff’s objections rebuts the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s request for an order from this Court for prison officials to transfer him to a different facility is generally beyond this Court’s authority. See McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 39 (2002) (“It is well settled that the decision where to house inmates is at the core of prison administrators’ expertise.”); Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923, 936 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[I]nmates

usually possess no constitutional right to be housed at one prison over another.”). Plaintiff fails to articulate—and this Court cannot discern from his papers or its own research—a legally sufficient reason to depart from this general rule here.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The report and recommendation, ECF No. 21, is accepted and adopted, over Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, ECF No. 19, is DENIED. 3. This case is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. SO ORDERED on October 23, 2023.

s/Mark E. Walker ____ Chief United States District Judge