Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00200/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00200-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

CARLOS MCQUARLEY, #198468, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13cv200-WHA 

 ) 

WARDEN KENNETH SCONYERS, et al., ) (WO) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER

 This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #9), 

entered on April 16, 2013, and the Plaintiff’s Objection (styled as “Memorandum”) (Doc. #10), 

filed on April 26, 2013. 

 Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation that his Complaint be dismissed prior to service. 

He filed his § 1983 action against Wardens Sconyers, Carter, and Hetzel in regard to a 

disciplinary he received for assault on a correctional officer (Officer Thompkins) . Plaintiff 

alleges that it was actually the correctional officer who assaulted him and complains that 

Defendants Sconyers, Hetzel, and Carter, nevertheless, believed Lt. Thompkins’ version of the 

altercation despite there being no evidence in Plaintiff’s prison record that he fights with 

correctional officers. Plaintiff also faults Defendants for not being more understanding rather 

than taking sides with Defendant Thompkins. Plaintiff complains that he fears bad things will 

come his way because he doesn’t know what correctional officers might do to him and that they 

may try to hurt him. 

 The Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissal of the Complaint against the named 

defendants based on the speculative nature of Plaintiff's allegations regarding his fears that 

Case 2:13-cv-00200-WHA-CSC Document 13 Filed 06/12/13 Page 1 of 2
correctional officers may try to harm him. The Recommendation also found dismissal of the 

Complaint against Defendants appropriate on the grounds that there is no respondeat superior 

liability in a § 1983 action, there is no right to be housed in a particular area of the prison or in 

any particular prison, there is no liberty interest in being granted parole, and that due process is 

not implicated by a generalized assertion that prison officials upheld an allegedly erroneous 

disciplinary charge. 

 In his objection, Plaintiff contends that he cannot obtain evidence to prove his argument 

and "hopes. . . the court would so order it." He further maintains that he still lives in fear and 

appears to claim that he is being punished (housed in segregation) for something he didn't do. 

 Plaintiff's Complaint fails against the named Defendants for the reasons explained in the 

Recommendation. His objection to the Recommendation does not provide any basis on which to 

withdraw the findings and conclusions therein. 

 

 Therefore, after an independent evaluation and de novo review of this case, Plaintiff’s 

Objection is OVERRULED, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, 

and it is hereby 

 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of 

process pursuant to the directives of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B)(ii) and (ii). 

 DONE this 12th day of June, 2013. 

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

 W. HAROLD ALBRITTON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:13-cv-00200-WHA-CSC Document 13 Filed 06/12/13 Page 2 of 2