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.

Boles v. Aramark Correctional Services, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

July 21, 2017

Robert Lee Boles, Jr., # 156632, Plaintiff,
v.
Aramark Correctional Services, Inc., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          PAUL L. MALONEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Robert Boles, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed this § 1983 claim against several defendants raising claims related to the food and food services provided. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 87.) The magistrate judge issued a report recommending the motion be granted. (ECF No. 108.) Boles filed objections. (ECF No. 113.) Defendants filed responses. (ECF No. 114.)

         I.

         After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are frivolous, conclusive or too general because the burden is on the parties to Apinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specifically consider”).

         II.

         A. Issues in Grievance 14-05-0572-09

         This grievance was filed on May 7, 2014, and raises an incident that occurred on May 4, 5, and 6. (ECF No. 87-3 PageID.893.) The magistrate judge found that the issue grieved was that Boles was served a meal on a dirty food tray. (R&R PageID.1289.) The magistrate judge then concluded that receiving food on a dirty tray does not amount to a violation of one's constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment. (R&RPageID.1291-92.)

         Bole objections. He argues that he grieved the failure to place appropriate food in low sodium diet trays, a violation of the therapeutic diet policy, which caused him to be hospitalized.

         Boles does not object to the conclusion that serving food on a dirty tray does not amount to a violation of one's rights under the Eighth Amendment.

         Boles's objection #1 is overruled. The relevant documents appear at ECF No. 87-3, PageID.891-93. The magistrate judge's conclusions about the document are correct. Although Boles did discuss the “on-going problem” about serving inappropriate food, the issue he addressed with the staff before filing this grievance was the cleanliness of the trays. As Boles completed the grievance form, the date of the incident was May 6. In the paragraph description of the incident, Boles states that on May 4, 5, at 6 the diet trays were dirty and that he spoke with “Coffrin, ” an individual not named as a defendant, who suggested he file a grievance.

         B. Issues in Grievance 14-06-0682-09

         This grievance was filed on June 5, 2014, and complains about events occurring between June 1 and June 5. (ECF No. 87-3 PageID.890.) The magistrate judge found that the issue raised in the grievance was that Boles was not provided a low-sodium diet. (R&R PageID.1289.) The matter was administrative exhausted as to Defendants Watts, Finley, Lamp and Hand. (Id.) The magistrate judge concludes the claim, as one arising under the Eighth Amendment, should be dismissed because Boles has not presented any evidence to support the subjective prong; he has no evidence that any of these four defendants were aware he had been prescribed a low-sodium diet. (Id. PageID.1293.) The magistrate judge also concluded that the claim should be dismissed because Boles has not alleged any unconstitutional acts, as opposed to inaction, by Defendants Watts, Finley, Lamp and Hand. (Id.)

         Boles objections. Boles argues he has presented evidence to support the subjective prong of an Eighth Amendment claim relating to his low-sodium diet for Defendant Hand.

         Boles does not object to the conclusion that he has not presented evidence to support the subjective prong for an Eighth Amendment claim related to a prescribed ...


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.