Jones v. Toombs, 95-1395
| Decision Date | 15 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1395,95-1395 |
| Citation | 77 F.3d 482,1996 WL 67750 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Steven Anthony JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond G. TOOMBS, Warden; Pete Vidor, Deputy Warden; Raymond Palmer, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Before: KEITH, COLE and SILER, Circuit Judges.
Steven Anthony Jones appeals a district court order dismissing his civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
Seeking monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, Jones sued numerous Michigan correctional officials and personnel, alleging that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment and due process rights when they denied him use of a mattress, did not provide him with adequate medical treatment, placed him in soft-lock, and denied him smoking privileges. Over Jones's objections, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted summary judgment for the defendants, and dismissed the case. Jones has filed a timely appeal.
Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants. No genuine issue of material fact exists and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796, 800 (6th Cir.1994). The defendants did not violate Jones's Eighth Amendment rights by depriving him of a mattress for a two week period. See Schroeder v. Kaplan, No. 93-17123, 1995 WL 398878, at * 2 (9th Cir. July 7, 1995) (). The defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Jones's serious medical needs because they did not intentionally deny or delay access to medical care or intentionally interfere with any treatment. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). Penological justification existed for placing Jones in soft-lock. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981). The defendants did notviolate the Eighth Amendment by denying Jones smoking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chappell v. Mandeville
...April–May 2002 would not have provided Chappell and Rosario with any further clarity either. Compare Jones v. Toombs, 77 F.3d 482, 1996 WL 67750 (6th Cir. Feb. 15, 1996) (unpublished) (holding that two weeks without a mattress did not violate the Eighth Amendment), O'Leary v. Iowa State Men......
-
Wells v. Jefferson County Sheriff Dept.
...to the level of a constitutional violation. Dean v. Campbell, 156 F.3d 1229, 1998 WL 466137 (6th Cir.1998)(cold); Jones v. Toombs, 77 F.3d 482, 1996 WL 67750 (6th Cir.1996)(mattress); Cook v. Mohr, 897 F.2d 529, 1990 WL 25062 (6th Cir.1990)(cold and mattress). As a result, Wells's claim for......
-
Davis v. Bedford Cnty. Jail
...Feb. 12, 2003) (seven-day deprivation of a mattress and bedding did not violate the Eighth Amendment); Jones v. Toombs, 77 F.3d 482, 1996 WL 67750, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 15, 1996) (two-week deprivation of a mattress is not a constitutional violation). Plaintiff's allegations of the existence......
-
Peoples v. Bauman
...while harsh, were not cruel and unusual punishment") (citing Stephens v. Carter Cnty. Jail, 816 F.2d 682 (6th Cir.1987)); Jones v. Toombs, 77 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1996) (noting that denial of mattress and requiring inmate to sleep on the floor for up to four weeks does not violate the Eighth ......