Mass v. Corecivic Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 September 2018
• Docket Number: No. 3:17-1206,3:17-1206
• Parties: RICHARD MASS, JR., Plaintiff v. CORECIVIC INC., Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

RICHARD MASS, JR., Plaintiff
v.
CORECIVIC INC., Defendant

No. 3:17-1206

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

September 27, 2018

Chief Judge Crenshaw/Brown
Jury Demand

To: The Honorable Waverly D. Crehshaw, Jr. Chief United States District Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated below, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 25) be GRANTED and this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Further, the Magistrate Judge recommends that any appeal not be certified as taken in good faith.

BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff's complaint is summarized in the Court's initial review of this case under 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(2) (Docket Entry 7). The Plaintiff is seeking relief from either contracting scabies or being exposed to scabies while an inmate of the Metro Davidson County Detention Facility. In his complaint (Docket Entry 1 at paragraph I), the Plaintiff alleged that he had filed an informal grievance about the matter but received no response. On May 1, 2018, a scheduling order was entered (Docket Entry 22). The Plaintiff was allowed 20 days to respond to any dispositive motions and the Plaintiff was advised that it was likely that Core Civic would file a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Page 2

True to their word, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry 25) supported by a Memorandum of Law (Docket Entry 26); a Declaration by Mr. Aylward (Docket Entry 27) who handles inmate grievances at the Metro Davidson County Detention Facility; a Declaration of Dr. James Bridges (Docket Entry 28), the treating physician at the Detention Facility, stating that any inmate who had scabies would be provided medical treatment and that the Plaintiff did not contract scabies during his incarceration at the Detention Facility; a Declaration of John Rychen (Docket Entry 29), Assistant Warden at the Detention Facility, providing the various policies, statements, rules and regulations concerning their efforts to prevent the spread of scabies in the Detention Facility, and in particular stating that the linens of female inmates were washed entirely separately from those of male inmates; and finally a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Docket Entry 30).

Following the filing of this motion on June 18, 2018, the undersigned Magistrate Judge entered an order on June 20, 2018 (Docket Entry 31) giving the Plaintiff until July 20, 2018, to respond and specifically pointing out that Plaintiff could not just rely on his complaint, that he must show there was a material dispute of fact with citation to the record, affidavits, or other matters of evidence. The Plaintiff was instructed to read and comply with Federal Rule 56 and Local Rule 56.01(a). He was specifically cautioned that failure to respond to the motion or to the statement of uncontested material facts could result in the Magistrate Judge taking them as unopposed and recommending that the Defendants' motion be granted and that his case be dismissed. On July 17, 2018,

Page 3

the Plaintiff sent the Court a letter (Docket Entry 32) pointing out that he did not have a lawyer or anyone to give him assistance with the paperwork and requesting time until he was released from prison to respond to the motion for summary judgment.

On July 23, 2018, the undersigned entered an order pointing out that the Plaintiff was not a member of the Graham, et al. v. Parker, et al. case involving the outbreak of scabies which was seeking class action, 3:16-cv-1954. The Plaintiff was given the address of Plaintiffs' counsel in the Graham case and was told that he was free to contact that counsel's office to see if they could assist with his case. The Court extended the Plaintiff's time to respond to the pending motion for summary judgment until August 22, 2018. The order noted that the primary issue involved in the motion for summary judgment was whether the Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. Plaintiff was again cautioned that failure to respond to the new deadline could result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed with prejudice.

As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff has failed to respond in any way to the motion for...