Smith v. Graham, 684 F. App'x 13

Background

Plaintiff Lawrence Smith, pro se, sued various Auburn Correctional Facility officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations arising from a 2012 disciplinary hearing and earlier events.
The district court sua sponte dismissed claims against Corrections Officer Walters and allowed Smith’s due process claim against Captain Chuttey to proceed; a magistrate judge recommended summary judgment for Chuttey.
Smith failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation; the district court adopted it and granted summary judgment for Chuttey.
On appeal, the Second Circuit deemed the failure to object a waiver of appellate review but also reviewed the merits, affirming summary judgment for Chuttey.
The court held that (1) the challenged statement qualified as a threat under prison rules, (2) alleged false testimony and refusal to call a redundant witness did not show denial of due process, and (3) claims against Walters were properly dismissed as time‑barred or insufficiently pleaded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver and review of due‑process claim against Captain Chuttey	Smith argued merits of due‑process violations at the disciplinary hearing	Appellees noted Smith did not object to the magistrate judge’s R&R and thus waived appellate review; alternatively, Chuttey argued the hearing complied with due process	Court held Smith waived review by failing to object; even on the merits, summary judgment for Chuttey was proper
Sufficiency of evidence for disciplinary finding (threat)	Smith argued his grievance did not communicate intent to harm and thus was not a threat	Defendants argued prison rule 102.10 covers non‑violent threats and there was reliable evidence supporting the finding	Held that the statement could constitute a threat under prison rules and was supported by reliable evidence
Alleged bias: false testimony and failure to call inmate witness	Smith claimed Walters gave false testimony and Chuttey refused to call an inmate who would show Walters placed Smith on keeplock earlier	Defendants argued false testimony alone does not establish due process violation and the inmate’s testimony would be redundant or refused to testify	Held that alleged false testimony did not prove denial of due process; refusal to call a redundant or unwilling witness was not a constitutional violation
Sua sponte dismissal of claims against Walters	Smith alleged Walters planted a spoon, stole legal papers (2008), stalked him, and illegally placed him on keeplock (2012)	Defendants argued older claims were time‑barred, harassment allegations lacked appreciable injury, and retaliation/due‑process claims were insufficiently pleaded	Held dismissal affirmed: 2008 claims barred by statute of limitations; harassment not shown to cause appreciable injury; retaliation/due process claims inadequately pleaded

Key Cases Cited

Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep’t, 706 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Kalwasinski v. Morse, 201 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 1999) (prison disciplinary hearings require a fair and impartial hearing officer)
Luna v. Pico, 356 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 2004) (findings must be based on some reliable evidence)
Boddie v. Schnieder, 105 F.3d 857 (2d Cir. 1997) (false testimony alone does not establish due process violation)
Holland v. Goord, 758 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2014) (refusal to call redundant witnesses not a due process violation)
Silva v. Casey, 992 F.2d 20 (2d Cir. 1993) (witness unwilling to testify need not be called)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must permit reasonable inference of defendant’s liability)