NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0229n.06
No. 09-1192
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
Apr 27, 2011
RONNIE McDONALD, ) LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
) WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF )
CORRECTIONS., et al., )
) OPINION
Defendants-Appellees. )
Before: BOGGS and COOK, Circuit Judges; and CARR, District Judge. *
JAMES G. CARR, Senior District Judge. Plaintiff-Appellee Ronnie McDonald appeals
from an Order dated December 5, 2008, entered by the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § §
1915(e)(2), 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
McDonald is a state prisoner placed in solitary confinement after a misconduct hearing. He
filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of his due process rights because the
defendants failed to hold the misconduct hearing in a timely manner in accordance with the
applicable policy directives. See P.D. 03.03.105 (requiring a misconduct hearing within seven days
*
The Honorable James G. Carr, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District
of Ohio, sitting by designation.
of segregation). Specifically, McDonald alleges that the hearing took place one day after the
expiration of the pre-hearing limit. McDonald seeks damages. 1
A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the complaint
be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. McDonald filed objections
to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and a motion to amend the complaint.
The district court denied McDonald’s objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation
and his motion to amend his complaint. It dismissed the complaint, though on grounds other than
those the magistrate judge had suggested.
The district court found that it was unclear from the facts alleged whether the hearing was,
in fact, held outside the required time period. Even if so, a one-day violation, the court held, did not
implicate a federal liberty interest because it caused no atypical and significant hardship under
Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
The court also concluded, in the alternative, that even if McDonald had a protectable liberty
interest which the one-day delay violated, he suffered no due process violation: the defendants held
the hearing within a reasonable time. McDonald’s claim for lack of due process with respect to his
temporary segregation therefore failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
With respect to McDonald’s disciplinary confinement after the misconduct hearing, the
district court found that the process McDonald received satisfied the due process requirements
1
We note that the defendants have not been served. The complaint below was dismissed prior
to service. In the Sixth Circuit, dismissal is appropriate where service has not been perfected within
the 120 day period unless the plaintiff has shown good cause for failing to comply with the rule. See,
e.g., Turley v. Ackley, 2008 WL 820393 at * 2 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 25, 2008) (citing Habib v. General
Motors Corporation, 15 F.3d 72, 73 (6th Cir. 1994) (“Absent a showing of good cause to justify a
failure of timely service, Fed. R. Civ. P. [4(m)] compels dismissal.”).
2
identified in Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). Furthermore, McDonald did not
allege any connection between the one day time delay and the adverse outcome of the disciplinary
action.
On de novo review, we conclude that the material facts of this case are not in dispute, the
district court properly applied the applicable law to the facts, and for us to prepare a detailed opinion
would be duplicative of the district court’s efforts and serve no useful jurisprudential purpose.
Accordingly, the challenged judgment is AFFIRMED on the basis of the district court’s
well-reasoned opinion.
3