Snodgrass v. Gilbert et al, No. 7:2016cv00091 - Document 112 (W.D. Va. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 12/17/2018. (slt)

Download PDF

CLERK'SOFFICE U.S.DIST.COUR-I AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTERN D ISTR ICT O F VIR G INIA R O A N O K E DIV ISIO N DEC 1? 2213 JULIA e.DUD BY: X , UTY z E.R wK . R . K EVIN SN O D GR ASS,JR ., CA SE N O .7:16C V 00091 Plaintiff, V. M EM O R AN D UM O PIN ION CHRISTOPHER GILBERT,c & , By: Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge D efendants. The plaintiff,Kevin Snodgrass,Jr.,a Virginia inmate proceeding pro K ,filed tllis civil rights'action ptlrsuantto 42 U.S.C.j1983,raising multiple claims. The courthas already adjudicatedmanyofhisclaimsregardingprisonconditions.Afterreview.oftherecord,thecourt concludes that the three defendants remaining before the court are entitled to judgment. Snodgrasshasalsotiledamotionforinterlocutoly injunctivereliefthatthecourtmustdismiss. The courthassum marizedtheproceduralhistory ofthiscasein prioropinions,ECF Nos. 33 aqd 86. Forreasonsstated in those opinions,the courtgranted sllmmary judgmenton a11 claimsexceptallegetIretaliation fortheplaintiffslitigation efforts,and ado ''ptedtheReportand Recommendation ofthemagistratejudgeregardingtheresultsofabenchtrialshehadconducted on thétclaim on August23 and 24,2017. In lightofthe intervening courtofappealsdecision in Bookerv.S.C.Dep'tofCo1'r.,855 F.3d 533 (4th Cir.2017),however,the courtvacated the portion ofthe order granting summary judgmentfor defendantsasto Snodgrass'claimsthat defendantsGallihar,Gilbert,and Stewarthad delayed llisprogressthrough the segregation stepSnodgrass v. Gilbert et al Doc. 112 down progrnm to retaliate againsthim forhisinfonnalcomplaintsand grievances,4n exerciseof his cqnstitm ionalrightto petition. Speciscally,the courtfound m aterialdisputesoffactas to whether these tllree defendants had threatened to hold Snodgrass longer in segregated confnementif he continued to file inform alcom plaints and grievances,and as to whether in Dockets.Justia.com ' . . retaliation forhisfling such grievanceforms,they m aderecommendationsordecisionsto hinder Snodgrass'progressin thestep-down program.Thecourtdenied summaryjudgmentastothese claim s and referred the m atter to M agistrate Judge Pam ela M eade Sargent for further proceedings,pursuantto28U.S.C.j636(b)' (1)(B). On July 17,2018,Judge Sargentconducted an additionalbench trialon the rem aining claimsand Snodpuss'motion forinterlocutory injunctiverelief.l The partiesagreed thatthe judge could also considerevidence taken during the 2017 bench trial. The case ispresently before . the courton Judge Sargent's reportand recommendation Cl the repolf),ECF No.110, '1i $ recomme i ndingjudgmentforthedefendants,andSnodgrass'objectionsthereto,ECFNo.111. ! I l f' hemagistratejudgemakesonlyarecommendationtothiscourt. Mathewsv.W eber, 1 4 23Ur ï S.261,270-71(1976).Thecourtischargedwithmnkl .ngu<aXnovodeterminationof those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recom mendations to which 1' k objectipn ismade.'' 28U.S.C.j 636(b)(1). Although the districtcourtmay give amagistrate judgeijfproposedfindingsandrecommendationst&suchweightas(theirjmeritcommandsandthe 1 l I '' h sotmddiscretionofthejudgewarrants, teauthorityandtheresponsibilitytomakeanirlfbrmed l finaldeterminationremainswiththedistrictjudge.UrlitedStatesv.Raddatz,447U.S.667,68283 (19à0).2 Therefore,in performing a X novo review related to any party'sobjections,the districtjudge mustexercise tlhisnon-delegable authority by considering the actualtestimony, and notm erely by reviewing the magistrate'sreportand recomm endations.'' W im merv.Cook, 774F.2d68,76(4thCir.1985). ' ! The docketreflectsthatthe courtnotified Snodgrasswellin advancethattheJuly 2018 hearing should includeevidenceontheremainingretaliation claim aswellashismotion forinterlocutory injtmctiverelief See ECFNo.94(mailedtoSnodgrassonMay17,20l8). 2 The courthas omitted internalquotation marks, alterations,or citations here and elsewhere in this m emorandum opinion,unlessotherwisenoted. 2 To find in favorofSnodgrass,thecouz'tmustbepersuaded thathehasproven each ofthe elem entsofhisretaliation claim sby a preponderance ofthe evidence. In re W inship,397 U .S. 358,371 (1970). Preponderance ofthe evidence means a factis more probable than not. Concrete Pipe & Prods.ofCal.-Inc.v.Constr.Laborers Pension Tr.forS.Ca1.,508 U.S.602, 622(1993). To prevailin aretaliation claim underSection 1983,aplaintiffsevidencem ustpersuade the courtthatç&(1)he engaged in protected FirstAmendmentactivity,(2)the defendanttook some action thatadversely affected his FirstAmendmentrights,and (3)there was a causal relationship between hisprotected activity and the defendant'sconduct.'' Martin v.Duffv,858 F.3d 239,249 (4th Cir.2017),cert.denied,138 S.Ct.738 (2018). To rule in the plaintiY s favor,the factfinder must find itm ore likely than notthatthe defendanttook the allegedly retaliatory actlçin response to the gplaintic s)exercise ofa constimtionally protected right.'' Adamsv.Rice,40F.3d72,75(4thCir.1994). ' Snodgrassobjectstothereport'scharacterization ofcertaintestimonyand documentation and itsfailtlre to interpretthe evidence asproofofhisasserted claim sagainstthe defendants. In lightoftheseobjections,the courthasspecitkally conductedéqnovo review ofthereportand the itemsofevidencethatSnodgrasshashighlighted. From thisreview,thecourtconcludesthat 1 the weightofthe evidence fully supports the materialfactualfindingsand the legalconclusions ofthereport. The2018reportrecognizesthatSnodgrassexercised hisFirstAm endm entrightsby fling numerousinform alcomplaintforms and grievances. Some ofthe adm inistrativeremedy form s in thé record include the nam es of one orm ore of the defendants. The reportalso finds that Snodgrass and his witnesses presented som e evidence that the defendants m ade comm ents suggesting a relationship between his filing of (Gpaperwork''and his delayed progress in the Segregation Step-Down Progrnm .3 The defendants testified that they had never threatened Snodgrasswith longersegregated confinement,and had neverretaliated againsthim ,because of hisuseofthegrievanceprocedures. The2018 reportstatesthat the evidence before the court does not persuade m e that any of the delays in Snodgrass'sprogression through the Step-Down program w ere caused by actions taken by the defendantsin an effortto retaliate againstSnodgrassforexercising his right to petition by filing com plaints and grievances.To the contrary, 1 continueto be persuaded thatwhen Snodgrassencotmtered adelay,the delay was based on hisown actionsorhisown failureto progressthroughtheprogram . Report14,ECF N o.110. From X novo review of the parties' evidence, the court likewise concludes that Snodgrass has not proven the causation elem ent of his retaliation claim . The court is not persuaded that any of the defendants'classifcation decisions about Snodgrass' stat'us were motivated by an intention to retaliate againsthim forhis use ofthe grievance procedures. The step-down progrnm is intended to change inmates'behavior and thinking to prepare them for safe reentry into a generalpopulation setting,and as such,it has severalcom ponents. Some c omponents are objective, including the requirement to remain free of new disciplinary I infractions and the requirem ent to complete assigned portions of the Challenge Series workbooks. Anotherimportantcomponentofthe step-down progrnm tand any prison security classitkation decision)issubjective,such asofficials'weeldy ratingsoftheinmate'sbehavior andtheirassessmentofthelevelofrisk heposesifreleased f' rom segregation. W itnesses testifed thatSnodgrass often received,and was notified oilpoor beha'vior ratings,because he was notshowing an appropriate levelof respect. These 1ow ratings were 3 The 2017 and 2018 reportsprovide details aboutthe step-dom zprogram thatthe courtwillnot regeathere. Moreover,thecourthasalready determinedthatofficials'occasionalmisapplicationofor fallure to com ply w ith step-down procedures does not rise to the levelof a constitutionalviolation and thus,doesnotstateany viableclaim forreliefunderj 1983. 4 suffklent,per policy,to delay his progress toward less restrictive confinem ent conditions, regr dless ofwhetherhe had completed required classes orbooks,or had avoided disciplinary charges. M oreover,Snodgrass haspresented no evidence ofretaliatory m otive---ofany reason thatthe defendantswould keep him in the step-down progrnm longer,m erely because he filed grievances about them or his segregation classifcation. Overall,the cotlrtfinds the greater weightof the more credible evidence to be that none ofthe defendants intentionally delayed Snodgrass'step-down progressbecause ofhisinformalcomplaintsorgrievances. Based on thematerialfactualtindingsin thereportand the court'sown 4-qnovoreview of . the reéord asreflected in thisopinion,the courtconcludesthatSnodgrasshasfailed to prove his retaliation claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the courtwill ovem zle Snodgrass'objectionsto thereport,adoptthereportin itsentirety,and enterjudgmentforthe defendants. Snodgrass'motion forinterlocutory injunctiverelief,ECF No.92,seeksatransferaway from W allensRidge State Prison,wherehe iscurrently confined,to a lowersecurity levelprison facility. The three defendants remaining before the courtare em ployees ofRed Onion State Prison, not W allens ltidge.. lt is undisputed that none of them has authority to have him transferred elsewhere. On this ground,the defendantshave m oved fordism issalofSnodgrass' m otion,and the courtwillgranttheirm otion.An appropriate orderwillenterthisday. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this mem orandllm opirlion and accompanying orderto plaintiffand to counselofrecord forthe defendants. Ex'rsR:This 1-IN day ofDecem ber, 2018. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge

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.