The opinion of the court was delivered by: E. Clifton Knowles United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction and Background
This matter is before the Court upon a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant ABL Food Management, Inc. (incorrectly named as "ABL Food Company"). Docket No. 49. Along with its Motion, Defendant has contemporaneously filed a supporting Memorandum of Law and a Statement of Undisputed Facts, along with Plaintiff's Deposition with Exhibits, and the Affidavits with Exhibits of Byron Grizzle, Sophia Holcomb, and Carla Hopper. Docket Nos. 50-55.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Court will construe as a Response. Docket No. 63. Plaintiff has not, however, filed a response to Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts, or submitted his own Statement of Undisputed Facts.
Defendant has filed a Reply to Plaintiff's Response. Docket No. 66.
Plaintiff filed this pro se, in forma pauperis action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that, from August 20, 2009 to October 22, 2009, his "civil rights were violated due to request of kosher diet due to religious beliefs and was met with intimidation retaliation and threat of retaliation on several occasions per exhibits A-Z." Docket No. 1. Plaintiff names the Davidson County Sheriff's Office and ABL Food Management as Defendants, and seeks monetary damages. Id.*fn1
Defendant filed the instant Motion and supporting materials on September 23, 2010. Docket Nos. 49-55. Defendant maintains that it is entitled to summary judgment because there are no genuine factual issues and because: (1) Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a); (2) Plaintiff filed a cause of action for an alleged mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of any physical injury, as required by 42 U.S.C. §1997e(e); (3) Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim based on vicarious liability; and (4) the "Statement of Facts" section of Plaintiff's Complaint does not state how Defendant was involved in the alleged incidents, nor does it establish that Defendant was in any way deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's needs. Id.
Plaintiff responds that Defendant denied him the right to practice his religious faith, that he "is not claiming he suffered a serious physical injury," and that Defendant did not have any procedure for filing grievances for him to follow. Docket No. 63.
Defendant replies that there is no genuine factual issue and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege how it was involved in the alleged incidents; there is no evidence in the record whatsoever demonstrating that Plaintiff was supposed to receive a kosher diet per his "nutritional profile," but was denied it; Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and Plaintiff failed to allege a physical injury. Docket No. 66.
For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED.
A. Allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint*fn2
The allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint, in their entirety, are as follows: civil rights were violated due to request of kosher diet due to religious beliefs and was met with intimidation retaliation and threat of retaliation on several occasions per exhibits A-Z.