Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Crockett v. Hawkins

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

August 7, 2017

COREY CROCKETT, Plaintiff,
v.
KIZZY HAWKINS,, Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#42], GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [#28], OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS [#43] AND DISMISSING ACTION

          GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On August 1, 2016, Plaintiff, a prisoner currently confined at the Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility (“Detention Facility”) in Nashville, Tennessee, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated by the Defendants. Defendants are employees of Corrections Corporation of America, now known as CoreCivic, Inc. (“CoreCivic”), which operates the Detention Facility.

         Plaintiff's claims stem from discipline he received in July of 2016 wherein he was placed on “sack lunches” for roughly two weeks when he slammed his meal tray against the cell door. Plaintiff claims these “sack lunches” always contained two bologna sandwiches, a bag of chips and cake and that his consumption of the same meal day in and day out caused him to suffer stomach aches. Plaintiff also claims that additional disciplinary proceedings in 2016 for separate conduct were procedurally inadequate and improper. Lastly, he asserts that his medical complaints were not adequately responded to from May through July of 2016.

         This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes for all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On April 20, 2017, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition on May 16, 2017, and Defendants filed a Reply on May 25, 2017.

         Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Holmes' Report and Recommendation, filed on July 6, 2017. Magistrate Judge Holmes recommends that the Court grant the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss this action in its entirety. Plaintiff filed his Objections to the Report and Recommendation on July 17, 2017, and Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff's Objections on July 27, 2017.

         For the reasons that follow, the Court will accept in part Magistrate Judge Holmes' Report and Recommendation, will grant the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and will dismiss this action. Specifically, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as it relates to her recommendation concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies on Plaintiff's medical care claim, as well as her conclusion that Plaintiff has failed to show any genuine issues of material fact exist as to his constitutional claims.

         II. LAW & ANALYSIS

         A. Standard of Review

The standard of review to be employed by the court when examining a report and recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636. This Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Id.

         B. Objection #1 - Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to dismissal because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit.

         Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), a prisoner asserting an action with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must first exhaust all available administrative remedies. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002).

         CoreCivic has an administrative grievance system that enables inmates to seek redress for issues relating to the conditions of their confinement. See Dec. of Phederica Dean, Ex. A, CoreCivic Policy 14-05. Prior to the submission of a formal grievance, inmates are required to submit a 14-5A Informal Resolution form within seven calendar days of the incident giving rise to the grievance. Id. at Pg ID 195-96. If the inmate is dissatisfied with the response to the 14-5A Informal Resolution grievance, the inmate must initiate a formal grievance 14-5B form within five days of receiving the Informal Resolution response. Id. at Pg ID ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.