Jones v. Whaley et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- Defendant Whaleys motion for summary judgment [Doc. 17]will be GRANTED and this action will be DISMISSED.Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 7/20/2016. (CNC, ) Mailed to Timothy Jones. (CNC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
TIMOTHY W. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
HAYDEN WHALEY,1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-CV-327
Judge Mattice
Magistrate Judge Lee

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is a pro se prisoner’s civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Before the Court is Defendant Whaley’s unopposed motion for summary judgment [Doc. 17].
As Plaintiff has not filed a response, he has waived any opposition to this motion. Elmore v.
Evans, 449 F. Supp. 2, 3 (E.D. Tenn. 1976), aff’d mem. 577 F.2d 740 (6th Cir. 1978); E.D. TN.
LR 7.2.

For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment [Doc. 17] will be

GRANTED and this action will be DISMISSED.
I.

BACKGROUND
Defendant Whaley is the only remaining Defendant in this action [Doc. 1 p. 1, 3; Doc.

14]. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on May 4, 2013, after Defendant Whaley gave
another inmate “the go ahead,” four inmates assaulted him in the shower in the annex jail [Doc. 1
1

The Court’s docket sheet lists First Med Inc. as an “Unnamed Defendant.” It appears
that this is due to the fact that an attorney filed a motion on behalf of “unnamed defendant” First
Med Inc. in which he asserted that although Plaintiff had named “First Med Medical” as a
Defendant, no such entity existed, and therefore requested that this entity be dismissed or that
Plaintiff amend his complaint and serve it on the registered agent for First Med, Inc., whose
name and address counsel provided [Doc. 10 p. 1–2]. As Plaintiff did not respond to this motion,
the Court granted it and dismissed First Med Medical [Doc. 14]. As Plaintiff has not amended
his complaint or sought service of process on First Med Medical, the Clerk is DIRECTED to
terminate this unnamed Defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

p. 3]. Plaintiff asserts that, after the assault, he showed Defendant Whaley his face and that
Defendant Whaley said he “knew what happen[e]d [and] did[] [not] care” [Id. at 4]. Plaintiff
further alleges that inmate Philip Wright told plaintiff that Defendant Whaley paid Wright in
tobacco for “hits on people he did[] [not] like or want in the pod” [Id.].
II.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court shall grant

summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
McLean v. 988011 Ontario Ltd, 224 F.3d 797, 800 (6th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is proper
if the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there are no
genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Hartman v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 569 F.3d 606, 611 (6th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The moving party has the burden of conclusively showing the lack of any
genuine issue of material fact. Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60, 63 (6th Cir. 1979).
Summary judgment is an integral tool for securing the “just, speedy[,] and inexpensive
determination of every action.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986). The moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law “against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that
party will bear the burden of truth at trial.” Id. at 322.
III.

ANALYSIS
In his motion for summary judgment and the memorandum and affidavit in support

thereof, Defendant Whaley has set forth undisputed evidence that: (1) he was the corrections

2

officer assigned to Pod C during the 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift on May 4, 2013; (2) it did not matter to
him where Plaintiff was housed; (3) he had no control over where Plaintiff was housed; (4) he
did not see anyone assault Plaintiff at any time during his shift on May 4, 2013, and no inmates
told him about it; (5) he did not tell anyone to assault Plaintiff; (6) Plaintiff did not tell him about
any incident in which he was “jumped” in the bathroom by other inmates; (7) he has never given
tobacco to an inmate; and (8) that he did not know until May 5, 2013, that Plaintiff had been
assaulted by inmates the night before [Docs. 17, 18, 18-1, and 19]. As this evidence establishes
that Defendant Whaley did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights as alleged in the complaint
and Plaintiff has not rebutted this evidence, Defendant Whaley has carried his burden of setting
forth evidence that no genuine issue of material fact remains in this action.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Whaley’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. 17]

will be GRANTED and this action will be DISMISSED. The Court hereby CERTIFIES that
any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Thus, should Plaintiff file a notice
of appeal, this Court will DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24.
AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER SHALL ENTER.

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3