Plemons, Jr. v. Core Civic Administrative Headquarters et al

Filing 55

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 47) be DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 6/7/2019. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
DAVID HOPKINS PLEMONS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORE CIVIC ADMINISTRATIVE
HEADQUARTERS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:18-cv-00498
Judge Crenshaw / Frensley

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction and Background
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Docket
No. 47.1
Defendants Greer and Washburn have filed a Response in opposition to Plaintiff’s
Motion, arguing that Plaintiff’s Motion fails to comply with the Federal and Local Rules and that
the actual evidence before the Court establishes that Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s First or
Eighth Amendment rights. Docket No. 50. In support of their Response, Defendants Greer and
Washburn have submitted their Declarations. Docket Nos. 51, 52. Defendants Greer and
Washburn also incorporate by reference the Response they submitted to Plaintiff’s previouslyfiled Motion. Docket No. 31.
Defendant Brun has filed a separate Response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion, arguing
that Plaintiff’s Motion fails to comply with the Federal and Local Rules. Docket No. 53.

1

Plaintiff has not filed the requisite supporting Memorandum of Law or Statement of
Undisputed Facts, nor has Plaintiff filed any other submissions in a form required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56 or the Local Rules.

Specifically, Defendant Brun argues that Plaintiff’s Motion is deficient because: (1) it contains “a
stream of consciousness statement of law and facts”; (2) such “facts” “are scattered throughout
the motion”; (3) the Motion “fails to cite to any evidence in the record in support of any stated
fact”; and (4) Plaintiff has failed to file a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, in derogation
of LR 56.01. Id.
For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 56.01 such that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
should be DENIED.
II. Facts
A. Declaration of Tara Greer
Defendant Greer is an employee of CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC (“CoreCivic”) who
works as a Case Manager at the Trousdale Turner Correctional Center. Docket No. 51,
Declaration of Tara Greer (“Greer Dec.”), ¶ 1. Defendant Greer does not recall Plaintiff’s
protective custody hearing and she does not recall an inmate requesting medical treatment during
a protective custody hearing. Id., ¶ 3. If an inmate did request medical treatment during a
protective custody hearing, particularly for something like broken ribs and difficulty breathing,
Defendant Greer would help the inmate to secure necessary medical treatment and would not
ignore the inmate’s medical needs. Id.
B. Declaration of Russell Washburn
Defendant Washburn is an employee of CoreCivic who works as the Warden at Trousdale
Turner Correctional Center. Docket No. 52, Declaration of Russell Washburn (“Washburn
Dec.”), ¶ 1. Defendant Washburn did not refuse to separate Plaintiff and another inmate who
2

was harassing Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff’s allegedly reporting gang operations and
seeking protection from allegedly unsafe living conditions. Id., ¶ 3.
III. Law and Analysis
A. Motion for Summary Judgment
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if
any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” A dispute is “genuine” only if “the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).
In order to prevail on a Motion for summary judgment, the moving party must meet the
burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue as to material fact concerning an essential
element of the opposing party’s claim. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548,
2553, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1477 (6th Cir.
1989). In determining whether the moving party has met its burden, the Court must view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) sets forth the requirement to support factual assertions as follows:
(c) Procedures.
(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a
fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support that
assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the
record, including depositions, documents,
3

electronically stored information, affidavits or
declarations, stipulations (including those made for
purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish
the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that
an adverse party cannot produce admissible
evidence to support the fact.
B. Local Rule 56.01(b)
With respect to the requirement to file a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts with
Motions for Summary Judgment specifically, Local Rule 56.01(b) provides in relevant part as
follows:
(b) Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. In order to assist
the Court in ascertaining whether there are any material facts in
dispute, any motion for summary judgment made pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56 must be accompanied by a separate, concise
statement of the material facts as to which the moving party
contends there is no genuine issue for trial. Each fact must be set
forth in a separate, numbered paragraph, the word “response” must
be inserted and a blank space provided that is reasonably calculated
to allow the non-moving party sufficient space to respond to the
assertion that the fact is undisputed. . . . The requirement that a
statement of undisputed material facts in the described formal must
accompany any motion for summary judgment applies to pro se
parties. . . .
C. The Case at Bar
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is a rambling 36 page document that utterly
fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) or Local Rule 56.01(b). Plaintiff’s Motion has no
supporting Memorandum of Law and fails to cite to the record. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed
to file a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. Plaintiff’s status as pro se does not excuse him
from complying with the Federal and Local Rules.
4

Plaintiff’s Motion fails to establish that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket No. 47) should be DENIED.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with
the Federal and Local Rules and has further failed to establish that there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the
undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 47) be
DENIED.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14)
days after service of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to
this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have
fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any
response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of
service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this
Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111
(1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

________________________________
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

5