Wall v. Artrip et al, No. 7:2015cv00097 - Document 108 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 4/17/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
GLERK' B QJ/FIGE kI.3.DIST.GOtJr AT DANVILLE,VA FILED lOR INTTHE HEUNI WES TED TERN STATES DISTRI DI CT STRI OFCT VIRGI COURT NIA R OA N O K E D IVISIO N 1 2 17 2219 JUL BK ,nlFRK # D G A R Y W AI,L , Plaintiff, C ivilA ction N o.7:15-cv-00097 V. M EM O R AN D UM O PIN IO N JEFFERY ARTRIP,etal., D efendants. By: L H on.Jacltson L.Kiser Senior U nited States DistrictJudge Gary W all,a V irginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,com m enced this action pursuantto 42 U.S.C.j 1983againsttwentp onedefendants,a11ofwhom areorwereemployeesofRedOnion State Prison (G(ROSP'') or oftk ialswith the Virginia Departmentof Corrections (<$VDOC''). Currently pending areDefendants'Motion for Summary Judgment(ECF No.812,and W all's CounterM otionforSllmmaryJudgmentEECFNo.96).TheM otionsforSllmmaryJudgmentwere referred,ptlrsuantto28U.S.C.j636(b)(1)(B),to aUnited StatesM agistrateJudge;jheissued a Reportand Recommendation (t&Report'')EECF No.991,to which thepartiestimely filed their objections(ECFNos.100,101j.Forthereasonsthatfollow,Iwillovem zletheparties'objections and adopttheReport,grantDefendants'motioninpal'tand denyitinpart,anddenyW all'smotion. InW all'sunverified,SecondAmendedComplaint(ECFNo.12q,asamendedbyECFNo. 50,he allegedthatDefendantsviolated hisFirstAmendm entrightsby retaliating againstlAim for Wall v. Artrip et al filing a j 1983 action againsta ROSP cnnine officer and forfiling informalcomplaintsand Doc. 108 grievancesagainstROSP officers. Specifkally,W allalleged thatvarious defendants retaliated against him by filing false or exaggerated disciplinary charges against him ,upholding these Dockets.Justia.com chargeson appeal,threatening him andplacing him in long-tenn segregation confinementand in tmfavorable security classifications,or upholding the confinement and secudty classification decisions.Healsoasserteddueprocessclaims,aconspiracy claim under42U.S.C.j 1985,and m ultiple state1aw tortclaim s. Afterreview of the presented evidence,the magistratejudge recommended gzanting Defendants'motion as to everytlling excepttFo claim s againstdefendantsArtdp and Lynch in their individual capacities. These two claim s contend that in retaliation for W all's filing of administrativegrievancesand/ora lawsuit,(1)in the sllmmerof2013,Artrip assigned W allto segregation withoutthe required administrative approvalofthe CentralClassification Services; and (2)onNovember6,2014,LynchfiledafabricatedchargeagainstW allforthreateningbodily hann. II. In a report pursuant to 28 U .S.C. recom m endations to the cotut 636(b), the magistrate judge makes only The recomm endations have no presllmptive weight, and responsibility for m aking a fm aldeterm ination rem ains with the court. M athew s v.W eber,423 U.S.261,270-71(1976). The courtischargedwith making ç&aétnovo determination ofthose f portionsofthereportorspecified proposed fndingsorrecommendationsto which objection is made,''andmay Gsaccept,reject,ormodify,inwholeorinpart,thefndingsorrecommendations'' ofthemagistratejudge. 28 U.S.C.j 636(b)(1). In responseto aparty'sobjection,the district judge must make Cçhis own determination on the basis of the record developed before the magistrate''judge.lAltuninum Co.ofAm.sBadinW orks.Badim N.C.v.U.S.Envtl.Prot.Acency, 663F.2d499,502 (4th Cir.1981).lntheabsenceofspecificobjectionstothereport,thecourtis notrequired to give any explanation foradopting itsfindingsand recomm endations. Cnmby v. Davis,718F.2d 198,199-200(4thCir.1983).Objectionsthatonlyrepeatargllmentsandevidence raised beforeamagistratejudgeare considered generalobjectionsto theentirety ofthereport, whichhavethesameeffectasafailttretoobject.Venevv.Astrue,539F.Supp.2d841,845(W .D. Va.2008). W allobjectsto the magistratejudge'sfindingsthatW allfailed to presenta disputed m aterial fact on which he could persuade a fact finder to rule in his favor on the claim s recommendedfordismissal.lnsupportofthesegeneralizedobjections,W allpointstoallegations inhiscomplaintasamendedandexhibitsintherecordthatthemagistratejudgeclearlyreviewed. W allalso reiterateshisown summaryjudgmentargtlmentsand hisargumentsin opposition to Defendants'motion.Nevertheless,in responseto W all'sobjections,1havereviewed,éçnovo, theportionsoftheReportand therecordrelated to each ofhisobjections. Iconcludethathis concernshavebeenadequatelyaddressedintheReportandwill,therefore,ovem zlehisobjections. g' llo state a colorable retaliation claim under Section 1983,a plaintiff must allege that (1) he engaged in protected First Amendment activity, (2) the defendant took some action that adversely affectedhis'FirstAmendmentrights,and(3)therewasa causal relationship between his protected activity and the defendant's conduct. 1 Ihaveom ittedinternalquotation m arks, alterations,and citationshere andthroughoutthisM em orandum Opinion,tmlçssotherw isenoted. * M artin v.Duffy,858F.3d 239,249(4th Cir.2017),cert.denied,138 S.Ct.738,(2018). CIEAj plaintiffsuffers adverse action ifthe defendant's allegedly retaliatory conductw ould likely deter a person ofordinary firm ness from the exercise ofFirstAm endm entrights.'' 1d. Defendants have objected to the Report's recommendation thatmzmmaryjudgmentbe denied asto the claim thatLynch retaliated forW all'slaw suitagainsta canine officerby charging W allforthreatening bodily hnrm. Specifcally,Defendants argue thatthe guilty finding atthe disciplinmy hearing on thischargeisdispositiveoftheretaliation claim againstLynch. l have review ed,4. qnovo,the related podionsofthe Reportand therecord relevantto . Defendants'objection. Inthecasesonwhich Defendantsrely,record evidenceclearly indicated thatthe inmate plaintiff took an action thatwas notallowed tm derprison rules,forwhich the defendantcharged him- writing tllreatsorderogatory languagein grievances,dousing an ofticer withabeverage,scufflingwithanotherinmate,orpossessingexcesscanteenitems).SeeHtmnicutt M.Kit't,No.3:10-CV-857CSI-I,2012W L 1247268(D.Conn.Apr.13,2012);Cowansv.W arren, 150F.3d910,912(8thCir.1998);Hendersonv.Baird,29F.3d464,469(8thCir.1994);Orebaugh v.Caspari,910F.2d526,528 (8th Cir.1990).Nosuch clarityexistsregardingW all'sconducthe expressly derliesm akingthethreatforwllich Lynch charged him . M oreover,Ifind persuasive theanalysisand holding ofMaben v.Thelen,887F.3d 252,262 (6th Cir.2018)CW finding of guiltataprison misconducthearingdoesnotactasan absolutebartoaprisoner'sFirstAm endm ent retaliation c1aim.''). Taldng the evidence in thelightmostfavorableto W all,whileLynch escorted W allto his cell on N ovem ber 6, 2014, the officer said,$Gl heard w hat happened w ith you suing O fficer Looney''and (GI w illm ake stlre your ass goes back to C-Building,''where long-term segregation * inmateswereconfined.R&R 28-29(ECF No.992. Lynch then broughtthedisciplinary charge claimingthatW alltllreatened,:$1'11getyou thenexttimeIcometotheyard.''J-IJ. Sat28.Atthe disciplinary hearing, W all derlied m nking the statem ent for which he w as charged,w as fotm d guilty,andwasfined$12.lagreewiththemagistratejudgethatW all'sevidencepresentsgenuine issuesofm aterialfacton wllich hem ightpersuade a facttinderthatLynch falsely charged W all w ith m aking a tllreat ofbodily harm in retaliation forW all'sprior 1aw suitagainstanothercnnine officer and that Lynch's retaliatory action resulted in a substantial adverse impact on W all. Therefore,IwilloverruleDefendants'objection. Furthermore,Iagreewiththemagistratejudge'sfactualfndingsbasedontherecord,her legalconclusions as to the outcom e ofW all's claim s,and herrecomm ended disposition ofthe parties'motions.Accordingly,IwilladopttheReport,denythedefendants'm otion forsllm mary judgmentinpal't,anddenyW all'smotion.Anappropriateorderwillehterthisday. The Clerk isdirected to send a copy ofthisM em orandllm Opinion and accom panying orderto the palies. ENTEREDthisl =.d' ayofApril,2019. $. S - IOR UN ITED STA TES DISTRICT JU D GE
]]>
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.
