UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Maiek Bouzld Alfane,

Plaintiff,

V. Case No. 2:17-cv-1002

Christine A. McKee, et al., Judge Michaei H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Jolson

Defendants.

ORDER

MaIek Bouzld Aliane ("Plaintiff"), a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this

Bivens action against Defendants Christine A. McKee ("McKee"), Alvis House

Operations Manager; Chris Paul ("Paul"), Residential Reentry Manager for the

Bureau of Prison ("BOP"); and Jeff George ("George"), BOP Disciplinary Hearing

Officer (collectively, "Defendants"). Compl., EOF No. 4. Plaintiff alleges

violations of his due process rights. On December 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge

Jolson, after conducting an initial screening of his Complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e), issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending

dismissal of Plaintiffs action for failure to state a claim. R&R, ECF No. 5.

Plaintiff objects to the R&R's findings. ECF No. 10.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) provides that "[wjithin 14 days

after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may

serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). "The districtJudge must determine
de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

objected to. The districtjudge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended

disposition: receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge

with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court conducted a de novo

review of the R&R and, for the following reasons, OVERRULES Plaintiffs

objections and AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the R&R.

This Order very briefly summarizes the relevant factual background, which

is more fully elaborated In the R&R. This action arises from actions taken during

Bureau of Prison ("BOP") disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiff commencing

in July of 2015. While Plaintiff was serving time at Alvis House for a prior crime,

he was arrested for the crime for which he is currently incarcerated. Nine days

after his arrest and booking into the Franklin County jail, McKee issued an

incident report charging Plaintiff with technical "escape" due to being arrested, in

violation of BOP Code 102.

On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff alleges he was served with the incident

report. The next day, the Center Discipline Committee ("CDC") recommended

that Plaintiff be found guilty of escape and sanctioned. Plaintiff alleges that

George approved that recommendation and sanctioned him with the removai of

forty-one good time credits. Plaintiff appealed the CDC recommendation. Upon

review, the North Central Reginal Director found several deficiencies in the

incident report and, on May 24,2016, remanded it to a Disciplinary Hearing

Officer ("DHO") for corrective action. Notwithstanding the remand, the incident

Case No. 2:17-cv-1002 Page 2 of 6
report remained pending on June 17,2016, and, therefore, Piaintiff was piaced in

a special housing until upon his arrival at a federal correctional institution that

day. Piaintiff avers that he was housed in the special housing unit for twenty-five

days, until a different DHO reheard the incident report and expunged it.

The Magistrate Judge concluded these facts, as alleged in PiaintifTs

Complaint, failed to state a claim for a deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional

rights. As the Magistrate Judge explained, under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.

472 (1995), "whether a prisoner ha[s] been subjected to a due process violation

in the context of a prison disciplinary proceeding depends upon whether the

restraint 'imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to

the ordinary incidents of prison life' or 'will inevitably affect the duration of his

sentence.'" R&R 6, EOF No. 5 (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 487). According to

Sandin, "the due process clause does not 'create a liberty interest to be free from

administrative segregation.'" id. at 7 (quoting McCuiiough v. Fed. Bureau of

Prisons, No. 1:06-cv-563, 2010 WL 5136133, at *5 (E.D. Cai. Dec. 6, 2010)).

Moreover, if an inmate's disciplinary record is expunged, he has no cognizable

injury that gives rise to a viable due process claim based on procedural violations

leading to the expunged disciplinary infraction. See Muhammad v. United

States, No. 07-66-GFVT, 2009 WL 3161475, at *6 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 25, 2009).

in this case, then, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiffs placement in

the special housing unit during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, and the

expungement of his incident report, had no implication on his due process rights.

Case No. 2:17-cv-1002 Page 3 of 6
because they did not impose a significant hardship on Piaintiff that would

inevitably affect the duration of his sentence. Id. at 6-7.

Finally, Magistrate Judge Joison recommended dismissal of this action for

the additional reason that Defendants are ail immune from suit. Id. at 8 (citing

Aladlml v. Alvis House/Cope Ctr., et al., No. 3:10-cv-121, 2012 WL 726852, at

**3-5 n.2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2012) for the proposition that federal offenders

serving time in a privately-operated halfway house have no implied right of action

against the halfway house under Blvens\ and citing Sanders v. Burton, No. 2:08-

cv-144, 2008 WL 5102525 at * 2 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 1, 2008) for the proposition

that hearing officers are entitled to absolute judicial immunity from suit for actions

taken in their capacity as hearing officers).

in PiaintifTs objection, he does not object to particular findings made by

Magistrate Judge Joison or argue that her conclusions were based on any error

of fact or law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (stating that a party must object to

specific findings in the R&R's proposed recommendations), instead, he

rehashes the factual allegations asserted in his Complaint and generally argues

that the circumstances of the disciplinary proceedings against him violated his

due process rights. See Obj., ECF No. 10. Specificaiiy, Piaintiff contends that, in

the BOP'S disciplinary proceedings against him, (1) he did not receive a written

notice of the charges against him at least twenty-four hours prior to proceedings,

(2) he was not permitted to call witnesses and present documentary evidence to

Case No. 2:1 7-gv-1002 Page 4 of 6
counter the charges against him, and (3) there was no credible evidence

justifying the disciplinary action. Id. at PAGEID ## 49-50.

But Magistrate Judge Jolson considered these allegations and concluded

that Plaintiff failed to state a claim, because he failed to demonstrate any

deprivation of a liberty Interest triggering procedural due process concerns. As

Magistrate Judge Jolson explained. Plaintiffs placement In the special housing

unit during disciplinary proceedings did not Impose an "atypical and significant

hardship" on Plaintiff—Instead, It fell "within the range of confinement to be

normally expected" In prison life. R&R 6-7, ECF No. 5 (citing Florentino v.

Biershbach, 64 F. App'x 550, 552 (7th CIr. 2003) and other cases). Moreover,

she pointed out that Plaintiffs record was ultimately expunged. The outcome of

the disciplinary proceedings, then, had effect on the duration of his sentence.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge concluded that, under Sandin, Plaintiff

suffered no deprivation of a liberty Interest that would give rise to a procedural

due process claim. Id. at 7. Plaintiff does not object to that legal conclusion, and

the Undersigned finds Itwas correct. To the extent Plaintiff Is arguing on

objection that the alleged Irregularities In the disciplinary proceedings are '"an

atypical and significant deprivation' In [their] own right," Florentino, 64 F. App'x at

552, that argument has no merit. Plaintiffs procedural due process claim Is

contingent upon alleging a deprivation of a substantive right. Id. Because he

has not alleged a deprivation of any liberty Interest, he falls to state a claim.

Case No. 2:17-cv-1002 Page 5 of 6
Given the Court's conclusion that Plaintiff fails to state a claim, it need not

address PlaintifTs contention that Defendants McKee and Paul are not entitled to

immunity.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES PlaintifTs objections,

AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 5, and DISMISSES this case.

Additionally, Plaintiffs February 28,2018, Motion for Recusal is DENIED. The

Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case and enter FINAL JUDGMENT

against Plaintiff.

Finally, the Court does not anticipate any further filings in this case now

that it is closed. But should Plaintiff seek to make any additional filings in this

case or its related case (No. 2:17-cv-142), he is ORDERED to first obtain leave

of Court. The Clerk is therefore DIRECTED not to docket any further filing by

Plaintiff in either of these cases absent authorization from the Undersigned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

IICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:17-gv-1002 Page 6 of 6