United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE, ETC.
STARRETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment  and Plaintiff's Motions for
Transfer , ,  and the Report and Recommendation
 of Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker and Objection
filed thereto  by Plaintiff, Ryan Anthony Savinell. The
Court has considered the above documents and the record in
this case and does hereby find as follows:
a post-conviction inmate, proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis filed a complaint in this matter
on August 11, 2017 relating to events that occurred at
Wilkinson County Correctional Facility (WCCF). The Court held
a Spears hearing to screen and clarify
Plaintiff's claims on March 23, 2018. The claims
articulated at the hearing supersede the Complaint.
See Order .
claims that several correctional officers at WCCF failed to
protect him. On October 26, 2016, Plaintiff was allegedly
robbed of his commissary items (food and personal hygiene
products) by another inmate, Marcus Sims. Plaintiff testified
at the hearing that he was taking a shower when Sims entered
the cell. Sims threatened Plaintiff and his cellmate with a
knife and prevented Plaintiff from alerting the guards. Sims
also stated he would stab Plaintiff if he left his cell
before the guards locked the cells down.
the alleged robbery, Plaintiff informed the guards on the
next shift of the incident but none of the commissary items
were recovered. Plaintiff testified that he also informed
Unit Manager Diania Walker about the robbery and other
altercations he had with Sims. It is Plaintiff's position
that Defendant Walker ignored his concerns and instead
allowed Sims to work as an orderly. This allowed Sims to work
outside of his cell most of the day and forced Plaintiff to
remain inside his cell to avoid Sims.
then testified that he was able to “red tag” Sims
in December of 2016. A “red tag” request allows
an inmate to be kept separate from another inmate who may
pose a threat to him or her. Sims and Plaintiff are no longer
housed on the same unit, but Plaintiff still allegedly fears
for his life because he is presently housed with some of
Sims's friends. According to Plaintiff, this fear has
forced him to remain in his cell for months at a time, and he
does not leave to use the shower.
sent grievances through the Administrative Remedy Program
(ARP) to Defendants Jody Bradley and Tracey Arbuthnot
requesting to be transferred to another prison. Plaintiff was
not transferred to another prison. On October 5, 2017,
Plaintiff claims he was assaulted by another inmate he called
“Baby-G.” Plaintiff alleges that Baby-G hit him on
the head and cut his hand using a prison-made knife.
Plaintiff believes that Baby-G is friends with Marcus Sims.
After the attack, the Unit Manager, Karen Brown, allegedly
prevented Plaintiff from “red-tagging” Baby-G.
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on July 2, 2018. Mot.
. Plaintiff responded on July 16, 2018. Resp. .
Defendants replied on July 29, 2018. Reply .
has also filed three Motions , , and  requesting
a transfer to another prison. All pending Motions are now
ripe for consideration.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
party objects to a Report and Recommendation this Court is
required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Longmire v. Gust,
921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991) (Party is
“entitled to a de novo review by an Article
III Judge as to those issues to which an objection is
made.”) Such review means that this Court will examine
the entire record and will make an independent assessment of
the law. The Court is not required, however, to reiterate the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40
(5th Cir. 1993) nor need it consider objections
that are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature.
Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d
419, 421 (5th Cir. 1997). No. factual objection is
raised when a petitioner merely reurges arguments contained
in the original petition. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d
290, 293 (5th Cir. 1993).
PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Parker's Report and Recommendation correctly states the
summary judgment standard and goes through the issues one by
one. The Plaintiff, in a very lengthy objection basically
restates the facts and allegations of his Complaint. The
Plaintiff is a prolific letter writer and the Court has
reviewed the letters that are part of the record as well as
the objection and tried to glean from them viable
constitutional issues that the Plaintiff has. In order to
keep some consistency with ...