Welch v. Core Civic

Filing 28

ORDER: Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 27 ) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. CoreCivic's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 14 ) is GRANTED. This is a final order. The Clerk of Court shall issue a judgment pursuant to the Fe deral Rules of Civil Procedure and close the file. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 11/6/2018. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(mg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JOHN ELLIS WELCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORECIVIC INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:17-cv-01516
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

ORDER
John Ellis Welch’s pro se Complaint seeks relief for being denied constitutionally adequate
medical care and being mistreated after having a seizure at the Metro-Davidson County Detention
Facility. (Doc. No. 1.) CoreCivic operates the Detention Facility under contract with the
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. (Doc. No. 19 at ¶ 3.)
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 27)
recommending that the Court grant CoreCivic’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) on
the ground that there is a lack of evidence to support a jury finding that CoreCivic had a policy,
custom, or practice that was the moving force behind unconstitutional conduct that caused Welch’s
alleged injuries. Welch has not timely filed objections.
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, this Court will only consider the narrow
question of whether there are “genuine issues as to any material fact and [whether] the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A motion for summary
judgment requires that the Court view the “inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts . . . in
the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655

(1962)). “The party bringing the summary judgment motion has the initial burden of informing the
Court of the basis for its motion and identifying portions of the record that demonstrate the absence
of a genuine dispute over material facts.” Rodgers v. Banks, 344 F.3d 587, 595 (6th Cir. 2003).
After the movant has satisfied this initial burden, the nonmoving party has the burden of showing
that a “rational trier of fact [could] find for the non-moving party [or] that there is a ‘genuine issue
for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587. If the evidence offered by the nonmoving party is “merely
colorable,” or “not significantly probative,” or not enough to lead a fair-minded jury to find for the
nonmoving party, the motion for summary judgment should be granted. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
CoreCivic’s Motion, Statement of Undisputed Facts, and supporting Affidavits establish
that it is entitled to summary judgment. Despite being “persons” for the purposes of § 1983,
municipalities (and their agents acting under color of state law) are not “liable for every misdeed
of their employees and agents.” Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t, 8 F.3d 358, 363 (6th Cir. 1993).
In other words, § 1983 does not support respondeat superior liability. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). “Instead, it is when execution of a
government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts
may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity
is responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694. Thus, to succeed in a claim against CoreCivic, Welch
must do more than allege misconduct by individual employees or suggest things that could have
been done differently or even better. At a minimum, Welch must: (1) identify a specific policy or
custom; (2) connect the policy or custom to CoreCivic; and (3) show that his particular injury was
caused by the execution of that policy or custom. Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 815 (6th Cir.
2003) (citing Garner, 8 F.3d at 364).

2

As explained in the Report and Recommendation, Welch has simply not met this burden.
Specifically, Welch contends that CoreCivic personnel failed to properly treat him post-seizure,
including making negligent bunk assignments. Welch does not, however, point to any policy
underpinning these alleged actions (even in response to the motion for summary judgment, which
sets forth policies requiring CoreCivic personnel to provide prisoners with adequate care).
Likewise, Welch’s isolated examples of CoreCivic personnel’s alleged behavior cannot alone
constitute the basis of a custom. Nor does Welch offer evidence that any purported policy or
custom was the “moving force” behind the specific constitutional violations that he alleges. For
all these reasons, no jury could find CoreCivic liable for the alleged constitutional violations of its
employees, and CoreCivic is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 27) is APPROVED AND
ADOPTED. CoreCivic’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 14) is GRANTED. This is a
final order. The Clerk of Court shall issue a judgment pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3