Gilley v. Ryan et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (D.E. 6); DISMISSING COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (D.E. 1); AND CLOSING CASE. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 9/9/2009. (bby)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S O U T H E R N DISTRICT OF FLORIDA C A S E NO. 09-22130-CIV-LENARD/WHITE D Y R O N LEE GILLEY, P l a in tif f , vs. T I M O T H Y P. RYAN, CAPT. S. K R O N B E R G , AND DEBRA GRAHAM , Respondents. ________________________________/ O R D E R ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE M A G I S T R A T E JUDGE (D.E. 6); DISMISSING COMPLAINT UNDER THE C I V I L RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (D.E. 1); AND CLOSING CASE T H I S CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Ju d g e Patrick A. White ("Report," D.E. 6), issued on August 17, 2009. In his Report, M a g is tra te Judge White recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint (D.E. 1) be dismissed for f a ilu re to state a claim. Plaintiff filed Objections ("Objections," D.E. 9) to Magistrate Judge W h ite 's Report on September 2, 2009. Having reviewed the Report, the Objections, and the r e c o rd , the Court finds as follows. I. B a c k gro u n d

P la in tif f proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 , alleging therein that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to p ro v id e him with his medically prescribed special diet, and by providing him with spoiled f o o d . He claims that it is a "common practice" that his diet tray does not include prescribed

ite m s and that on "numerous occasions" he has received spoiled or soured food, which c a u s e d him to become ill on two occasions. D e f e n d a n t Ryan is the Director of the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation D ep artm en t. Defendant Kronberg is a Captain at the Metro West Detention Center.

D e f en d a n t Graham is the Food Service Director of the Metro-Dade Corrections and R e h a b ilita tio n Department. II. R e p o r t and Objections

In his Report, Magistrate Judge White recommends that the Court dismiss the C o m p la in t for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted: T h e plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to show that Ryan or Kronberg w a s personally involved in the alleged shortcomings with regard to his m e d ica lly prescribed diet or the quality of his food. He specifically seeks to h o ld Ryan and Kronberg responsible for the alleged constitutional violations b e c a u se they hold supervisory positions. These individuals cannot be liable u n d e r a respondeat superior theory, and the absence of allegations that either o f these defendants was personally involved or even aware of the plaintiff's d ieta ry needs or quality of his f o o d is not sufficient to state a claim of deliberate indifference that comports w ith the [Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)] standard. S im ila rly, the plaintiff has failed to allege any facts to show that Graham acted w ith deliberate indifference or that she was aware of the plaintiff's individual d ie ta ry needs or the condition of his food. The plaintiff states that Graham " o v e rs e e s" all menu requirements but he fails to state that Graham was p e rs o n a lly involved in the alleged constitutional violations. It is not even clear w h e th e r Graham works at the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation D e p a rtm e n t headquarters, as stated in the "Parties" section of the Complaint o r at MWDC, as implied in the body of the Complaint. (D .E . 6 at 7-8 (footnotes omitted).)

2

In his Objections, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants were personally involved in the constitutional violations alleged in his Complaint, but does contend that they were a w a re of the violations based on the grievances he has filed though the Corrections and R e h a b ilita tio n s Department's grievance procedures. III. D is c u s s io n

P la in tif f 's Objections fail. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 (2009), the S u p rem e Court made it clear that a supervisor's mere knowledge of his subordinate's u n c o n stitu tio n a l actions does not amount to the supervisor's violating the Constitution. That is, "[a]bsent vicarious liability, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is o n ly liable for his or her own misconduct." Id. Instead, a plaintiff must demonstrate either that the defendant directly participated in the alleged constitutional deprivation or that there is some other causal connection between the official's acts or omissions and the alleged c o n s titu tio n a l deprivation. Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1360 (11th Cir. 2003); Brown v . Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 671 (11th Cir. 1990); Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th C ir. 1998) (per curiam). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate either direct participation by the D e f e n d a n ts or any other type of causal connection. Accordingly, and it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. T h e Report of Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White (D.E. 6), issued on August

1 7 , 2009, is ADOPTED. 2. P la in tif f 's Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed on

3

o r about July 22, 2009, is DISMISSED. 3. 4. T h i s case is CLOSED. A ll pending motions not otherwise ruled upon are hereby DENIED as moot.

D O N E AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 9th day of September, 2009.

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________________ J O A N A. LENARD U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4