Carrigan-Terrell v. Doctor Silvia et al, No. 2:2012cv00387 - Document 21 (S.D. Ohio 2012)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. No. 15, is therefore GRANTED.The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in this case. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 11/26/12. (ds)

Download PDF
Carrigan-Terrell v. Doctor Silvia et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION D’NANEKAI CARRIGAN-TERRELL, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-387 Judge Graham Magistrate Judge King DOCTOR SILVIA, et al., Defendants. ORDER Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges that she was transferred from the Franklin Pre-Release Center (“FPRC”), where she worked as a porter, to the Ohio Reformatory for Women (“ORW”) without notice, hearing or opportunity to appeal, all in violation of her right to due process of law. On October 29, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. No. 15, be granted. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 18. This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff’s objections to that recommendation. Motion for Relief, Doc. No. 20. The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). As the Magistrate Judge noted, state inmates are vested with a liberty interest and the due process clause of the United States Constitution entitles a state prisoner to notice and opportunity to be heard prior to a transfer to another institution only where conditions at the other institution impose “atypical and significant hardships on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Cf. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 Dockets.Justia.com (2005)(recognizing an inmate’s liberty interest in not being transferred to Ohio’s “supermax” institution without due process of law). The conditions at ORW as reflected in the exhibits attached to plaintiff’s complaint do not meet that standard. In her objections, plaintiff does not disagree with either the reasoning or recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Rather, plaintiff presents her own recommendations as to what she believes are appropriate procedures that should be followed before an inmate is transferred to another prison. However, the due process clause of the United States Constitution attaches only to constitutionallyprotected liberty interests. Because plaintiff has not established that she has a constitutionallyprotected liberty interest in remaining at FPRC, the Constitution did not require due process in connection with plaintiff’s transfer from that institution to ORW. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. No. 15, is therefore GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in this case. Date: November 26, 2012 s/James L. Graham James L. Graham United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.