Beiruti v. Corrections Corporation of America and its Officers et al

Filing 52

ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/24/2012 adopting 47 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 23 Motion to Dismiss and granting Judgment in favor of Defendant, Freddie Morris. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 ISSA SANAD BEIRUTI,
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
)
AMERICA AND ITS OFFICERS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

17

Case No.:1:09-cv-01041-LJO-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL
(Doc. 47)

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

18 pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
19 (1971).
20

On December 30, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that

21 Defendant Morris’ motion for summary judgment be granted. (Doc. 47) In particular, the
22 Magistrate Judge determined that there was no evidence that Morris had any role in the alleged
23 failure to provide Plaintiff nutritionally adequate substitute meals during the prison lookdown at
24 issue. (Doc. 47 at 6) Indeed, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff did not counter Morris’
25 evidence that he “did not develop inmate menus, did not certify them, did not approve them, did
26 not prepare any meals and did not play any role in deciding which substitute menu items would
27 replace hot menu items.” Id. Given this, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Morris’
28
-1-

1 motion for summary judgment be granted.
2

On January 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

3 (Doc. 51) Plaintiff complains, among other arguments, that investigation into the adequacy of
4 the meals provided could have and should have occurred immediately following the end of the
5 prison lockdown. Id. at 2-5, 16-17. In making this argument, Plaintiff ignores that his claim was
6 based upon the denial of adequate food and not the quality of the investigation related to his
7 grievance.1 Likewise, Plaintiff’s continued argument that the meals served to him were
8 nutritionally deficient (Id. at 5-8), misses the point. The Findings and Recommendation assumed
9 that Plaintiff was served inadequate meals but determined that Plaintiff failed to counter Morris’
10 evidence that he was not legally responsible because he did not have any role in determining
11 what food items would be served to the inmates. Thus, in his opposition to the motion for
12 summary judgment, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate–through providing admissible evidence– that
13 Morris was responsible in any fashion for the alleged constitutional harm.
14

Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C) and Britt v.

15 Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de
16 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the
17 findings and recommendation are supported by the record and by proper analysis.
18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

20

The amended findings and recommendations filed December 30, 2011, are
ADOPTED IN FULL;

21

2.

Judgment is granted in favor of Defendant Freddie Morris.

22
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 Dated:
66h44d
25
26
27
28

January 24, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Moreover, such a claim is not cognizable because there is no constitutional right to any particular
grievance procedure. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (an inmate has no constitutional
entitlement to a specific grievance procedure). Moreover, prison official’s failure to process an inmate’s grievance,
without more, is not actionable under § 1983. Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993).

-2-