Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sidney E. Purdie v. Conners

March 30, 2012

SIDNEY E. PURDIE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CONNERS, CORR. OFFICER, AUBURN CORR. FACILITY; C. GUZEWICZ, CORR. OFFICER, AUBURN CORR.FACILITY; AND VOSBERG, CORR. OFFICER, AUBURN CORR. FACILITY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this pro se prisoner civil rights action filed by Sidney E. Purdie ("Plaintiff") against the three above-named correctional employees ("Defendants"), are the following: (1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 59); (2) Plaintiff's request for an "Order of Protection" (Dkt. No. 62); (3) the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation recommending that the Court (a) grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all claims against all Defendants, except the claim against Defendant Vosburg for retaliation arising from the assault of August 4, 2009, and (b) deny Plaintiff's motion for a protective order (Dkt. No. 66); and (4) Plaintiff's Objection to the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 67). For the reasons set forth below, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted except for its recommendation regarding the survival of Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Defendant Vosburg arising from the assault of August 4, 2009, which is dismissed; Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in its entirety; Plaintiff's motion for a protective order is denied; and his Second Amended Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on August 27, 2009. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff filed an Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint") on July 20, 2010. (Dkt. No. 20.)*fn1 Generally, construed with the utmost of liberality, those portions of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint that remain pending in this action allege that, in July and August of 2009, while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility ("Auburn C. F."), Defendants retaliated against him for filing grievances and were deliberately indifferent a serious risk of harm to Plaintiff by paying another inmate to stab him. (Dkt. No. 20, at 2-6.)

More specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated his constitutional rights in the following manner: (1) Defendants Vosburg and Conners denied him recreational and meal privileges after Plaintiff submitted a complaint against Defendant Vosburg in violation of the First Amendment; (2) Defendant Vosburg paid an inmate with cigarettes to assault Plaintiff on August 4, 2009; and (3) Defendant Guzewicz failed to protect Plaintiff from an assault by an inmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Id.)

For a more detailed recitation of Plaintiff's claims and factual allegations in support thereof, the Court refers the reader to the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety (Dkt. No. 20) and to the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, which accurately recites those claims and factual allegations (Dkt. No. 51).

B. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Generally, in support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants assert the following two arguments: (1) Plaintiff has failed to establish a First Amendment claim against Defendants because Plaintiff has failed to establish that (a) Defendants took adverse action against Plaintiff, (b) Defendant Guzewicz had knowledge of any grievance filed against Defendants Vosburg or Connors by Plaintiff, and (c) Defendants Vosburg and Connors were personally involved in precluding Plaintiff from attending meal, recreation or shower; and (2) Plaintiff has failed to establish his Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants because Plaintiff has not established that (a) Defendants had prior knowledge that the assault on August 4, 2009, was going to occur, and (b) Defendants were otherwise deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's safety. (Dkt. No. 59).

C. Plaintiff's Response and Request for a Protective Order

Even when construed with the utmost of special liberality, Plaintiff's response to Defendants' motion does not specifically oppose their motion. (Dkt. No. 62.) For example, Plaintiff's response includes neither a memorandum of law nor a Rule 7.1 Response. (Id.) Rather, Plaintiff's response includes a request for an Order of Protection for the unidentified witnesses who allegedly will testify against the remaining Defendants at the trial in this action. (Id.)

D. The Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation

Generally, the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (Dkt. No. 66.) More specifically, the Magistrate Judge concluded that all of Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed except for the retaliation claim asserted against Defendant Vosburg connecting him to the assault on August 4, 2009. (Id.) In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended the denial of Plaintiff's request for a protective order, because Plaintiff has not (1) provided the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.