United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division
TO: THE HONORABLE ALETA A. TRAUGER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOHN S. BRYANT United States Magistrate Judge
Pending in this case is the motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of Defendants Sheriff Daron Hall and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (“Metro Government”) (Docket Entry No. 96). Plaintiff Keel has filed his “Motion to Proceed With Trial” (Docket Entry No. 102), which the undersigned Magistrate Judge construes to be Plaintiff’s response in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
For the reasons stated below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be GRANTED and that the complaint be DISMISSED.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Plaintiff Keel, a pretrial detainee who is proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging multiple instances of unconstitutional conduct by Defendants arising from Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement in the Criminal Justice Center operated by Defendant Metro Government in Nashville, Tennessee (Docket Entry No. 1).
Ruling on an earlier filed motion, the Court has previously dismissed all claims by Plaintiff except the claim against Defendants Sheriff Hall and Metro Government for alleged sewage leaking from the ceiling of Plaintiff’s cell (Docket Entry No. 89). Defendants Hall and Metro, by their present motion for summary judgment, seek dismissal of this remaining claim.
SUMMARY OF PERTINENT FACTS
Plaintiff Keel asserts that when it rained the ceiling of Cell 2-E where he was confined leaked sewage water (Docket Entry Nos. 1 at 5, 12-14, 16-18).
It appears undisputed that Plaintiff Keel was housed in Cell 2-E from May 17 through October 15, 2013 – the date the complaint was filed (Docket Entry No. 98). It further appears that Cell 2-E is a large community cell covering approximately 2, 400 square feet, consisting of one room housing 52 bunks, as well as seven toilets, six sinks, and four showers (Docket Entry No. 99 at 1).
It further appears undisputed that on or about September 11, 2013, Plaintiff Keel submitted Grievance No. 189246 complaining of a sewage leak in Cell 2-E (Docket Entry No. 100 at 2). Lieutenant Abernathy responded to this grievance, finding it to be sustained. As a result of Keel’s grievance, a work order was recorded on October 1, 2013, and the maintenance department determined that the cause of the leak was a toilet that needed repair in Cell 3-B located on the floor above. According to the declaration of Maintenance Supervisor William Dailey, repair was performed and this repair resolved the leak (Docket Entry No. 99). Plaintiff Keel submitted no other grievances complaining of a leak in Cell 2-E (Docket Entry No. 100).
During his discovery deposition, Plaintiff Keel testified that he was claiming no physical injury resulting from this sewage ...