RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TERRY F. MOORER, Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is Plaintiff's request for class certification of this action. The court construes the request as a motion to certify class under Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of the motion to certify case as a class action, the court concludes that this motion is due to be denied.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the pro se inmate Plaintiff challenges the conditions of confinement at the Ventress Correctional Facility. Plaintiff seeks to represent the interests of other similarly situated inmates.

Plaintiff cannot adequately represent the interests of the putative class. Among the requirements which litigants must meet in order to maintain an action as a class action is that a class representative must "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Rule 23(a)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While a pro se litigant may bring his own claims to federal court, he may not litigate the claims of others. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654.1 The competence of a layman is "clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others." Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.1975); see also Hummer v. Dalton, 657 F.2d 621, 623 (4th Cir. 1981); Ethnic Awareness Organization v. Gagnon, 568 F.Supp. 1186, 1187 (E.D. Wis. 1983); Inmates, Washington County Jail v. England, 516 F.Supp. 132, 144 (E.D. Tenn. 1980). The court also finds that, with respect to the claims presented in the instant action, the prosecution of separate civil actions will not create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to any general claims for relief. Rule 23(b)(1)(A), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See also Inmates, Washington County Jail, 516 F. Supp. at 144 (denying pro se plaintiffs' request to certify action as a class action and finding that "any declaratory relief granted . . . would likely inure to the benefit of other similarly-situated individuals" even without granting the request to certify case as a class action). Thus, Plaintiff's motion to certify this case as a class action is due to be denied.

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

It is further

ORDERED that on or before May 14, 2014, Plaintiff may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. Plaintiff is advised this Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and advisements in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.