United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
B. Russell, Senior Judge.
matter is before the Court on three separate motions for
summary judgment filed by Defendants Daniel Thomas, Fulton
County, and Ricky Parnell (R. 47; R. 49; R. 50). On October
19, 2018 the Court granted Plaintiff, Joshua Gamble, a 21-day
extension to respond to Defendants' Motions for summary
judgment. The extension has lapsed by over a month, and
Parnell has failed to respond. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court HEREBY GRANTS THE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, and, in the interest of justice,
dismisses with prejudice the claims against Defendant Ron
Armstrong-the only remaining Defendant in the action.
judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In determining whether summary judgment
is appropriate, a court must resolve all ambiguities and draw
all reasonable inferences against the moving party. See
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
every issue of fact or conflicting inference presents a
genuine issue of material fact.” Street v. J. C.
Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1477 (6th Cir. 1989).
The test is whether the party bearing the burden of proof has
presented a jury question as to each element in the case.
Hartsel v. Keys, 87 F.3d 795, 799 (6th Cir. 1996).
The plaintiff must present more than a mere scintilla of
evidence in support of his position; the plaintiff must
present evidence on which the trier of fact could reasonably
find for the plaintiff. See Id. (citing Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct.
2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). The plaintiff may accomplish
this by “citing to particular parts of materials in the
record” or by “showing that the materials cited
do not establish the absence . . . of a genuine dispute . . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). Mere speculation will not
suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment; “the
mere existence of a colorable factual dispute will not defeat
a properly supported motion for summary judgment. A genuine
dispute between the parties on an issue of material fact must
exist to render summary judgment inappropriate.”
Monette v. Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 90 F.3d 1173,
1177 (6th Cir. 1996).
and pro se plaintiff, Joshua Gamble brought multiple
42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendants Daniel
Thomas, Fulton County, Ricky Parnell, and Ron Armstrong
alleging that he was forced to work as a block layer in
unsafe working conditions, that he was retaliated against
when he refused to perform work under those conditions, that
he was exposed to black mold, that money had been taken from
his inmate account improperly, and that overcrowding at the
Fulton County Detention Center caused unfit living conditions
for the inmates.
his deposition, Gamble, stated that he had not filled written
grievances of any kind. (Gamble Depo. P. 212). Further,
Gamble has produced no evidence through discovery that he has
suffered any injury.
Thomas, Fulton County, and Parnell have all filed separate
motions for summary judgment in which they argue that Gamble
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and failed to
prove injury as required by Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA). The Court Granted Gamble a 21-day extension to file a
response to the Defendants' motions for summary judgment
on October 19, 2018. That extension has lapsed by over a
month, and Gamble has failed to respond.
PLRA requires that “[n]o action shall be brought with
respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this
title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in
any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). It further
requires that “[n]o Federal civil action may be brought
by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other
correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury
suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical
injury or the commission of a sexual act (as defined in
Section 2246 of Title 18).” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
The Defendants argue that Gamble has not exhausted his
administrative remedies and point to his deposition testimony
in which he admits to filling no written grievances. (Gamble
Depo. P. 212). They also argue that Gamble has produced no
evidence of injury and point to the record. By
Plaintiff's failure to respond, the Court must assume
that the facts alleged and properly supported in the
Defendants' motions for summary judgment are undisputed.
See Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trs., 980 F.2d 399,
404-407 (6th Cir. 1992). Therefore, the Court finds that
Gamble has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and
has failed to show a physical injury as required by the PLRA.
The Defendants motions for summary judgment are granted.
based on the findings above, the Court holds that in the
interest of justice Gamble's claims against Defendant Ron
Armstrong should be dismissed with prejudice.
on the findings and conclusion above, it is HEREBY
ORDERED as follows: Defendants Thomas's,
Parnell's, and Fulton County's Motions for summary