BOYNTON
v.
STRICTLAND
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the case because the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation and any amendment would be futile.
The plaintiff objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation that his case be dismissed. The plaintiff alleged constitutional violations…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prison Regulations cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) and Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 12). The Court has reviewed de novo the issues raised in the objection, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a constitutional violation and any amendment to the complaint would be futile. The Court has not overlooked the state prison regulations cited by Plaintiff in his objection. However, even if Defendant violated those regulations by removing Plaintiff from the prison cafeteria before he finished his meal, that would not undermine the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition of this case because it is well established that not every violation of a state prison regulation rises to the level of a federal constitutional violation. See, e.g., Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-82 (1995) (explaining that “prison regulation[s] [are] primarily designed to guide correctional officials in the administration of a prison” and that “such regulations [are] not designed to confer rights on inmates”). Nor has the Court overlooked Plaintiff’s objection to the magistrate judge’s involvement in this case. However, there is no merit to that objection because the parties’ consent is only required when a case is referred to a magistrate judge for final disposition, see 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(1), and this case was only referred to the magistrate judge for preliminary proceedings and a report recommending disposition of the case, see N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C). The Court (not the magistrate judge) is responsible for the final disposition of the case. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the Clerk shall close the case file.
DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2020.