Tims v. Lewis et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 3/10/14 (dfk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
QUINCY TIMS
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12cv255-DPJ-FKB

TYRONE LEWIS, et al.

DEFENDANTS

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Hinds County Detention Center (HCDC), brought
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1983 alleging that he was injured by a faulty light fixture
in his cell. Presently before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed by Tyrone
Lewis, Mike Ivy, and Chris Picou. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. Having
considered Plaintiff’s sworn complaint, his testimony at the omnibus hearing, and the
evidence submitted by Defendants in support of their motion, the Court concludes that the
motion should be granted.
Plaintiff alleges that on February 22, 2012, a light fixture with faulty wiring fell from
the ceiling in his cell and burned him. He testified at the omnibus hearing that he had filed
numerous grievances about the problem prior to the incident. He also complains that he
did not receive prompt medical attention for his injuries.
Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law because he has failed to link any of the
named defendants with any constitutional violation. When questioned at the omnibus
hearing concerning the involvement of Sheriff Tyrone Lewis and Deputy Chris Picou, he
responded that he was suing these defendants because they were responsible for
conditions at the jail. There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Monnell v.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Rather, a plaintiff must prove that the

defendants directly participated in the denial of his constitutional rights. Goodman v.
Harris Cnty., 571 F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff has failed to come forward with
any evidence, or even allege, that Lewis and Picou knew about the problem in Plaintiff’s
cell. Thus, he has established no basis for holding them liable.
Plaintiff’s claim against Mike Ivy is based upon the allegation that Ivy did not allow
him to go to the medical unit for treatment for his injuries. Plaintiff’s medical records
indicate that he was seen in the medical clinic approximately an hour after the incident
and was treated for first degree burns and vomiting. This claim is likewise without merit.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is hereby granted. A separate judgment will be
entered.
SO ORDERED this the 10TH day of March, 2014.
/s/ F. Keith Ball
______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2