United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
SHAWN M. SINGLETON DEFENDANTS
COMMISSIONER MARSHALL L. FISHER, et al. PLAINTIFF
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. BROWN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se prisoner civil rights action is before the Court for
consideration of the motion for summary judgment filed by
Wendall Banks, Marshall Fisher, Earnest Lee, Timothy Morris,
and Jerry Williams. Doc. #42.
15, 2015, Shawn M. Singleton filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi against numerous defendants, claiming sexual
assault during pat-down searches, unconstitutionally harsh
general conditions of confinement, mail tampering, deficient
handling of grievances, deprivation of property without due
process of law, failure to protect, denial of medical care,
and constitutionally inadequate living space within his cell.
Doc. #1 at 37-39. On November 9, 2015, Singleton appeared
before United States Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander for
a Spears hearing.
December 15, 2015, Judge Alexander issued a Report and
Recommendation addressing Singleton's claims. Doc. #20.
Judge Alexander recommended that Singleton's: (1) claims
for sexual assault, unconstitutionally harsh general
conditions of confinement, mail tampering, deficient handling
of grievances, and failure to protect, be dismissed for
failure to exhaust; (2) claim for unlawful taking be
dismissed for failure to exhaust and failure to state a
claim; (3) denial of medical care claim be dismissed for
failure to state a claim; and (4) the constitutionally
inadequate living space claim proceed against Fish
Commissioner Marshall L. Fisher, Deputy Commissioner Jerry
Williams, Superintendent Earnest Lee, Warden Timothy Morris,
and Deputy Warden Wendell Banks. Id. at 6-7.
Singleton filed timely objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Doc. #22.
December 2, 2016, Banks, Fisher, Lee, Morris, and Williams,
filed a motion for summary judgment on the claim for
constitutionally inadequate living space. Doc. #42. Singleton
responded in opposition, Doc. #46; and the moving defendants
did not reply.
12, 2017, this Court entered an order rejecting the Report
and Recommendation to the extent it recommended dismissal of
Singleton's claims for failure to exhaust, but adopting
the Report and Recommendation in all other respects. Doc.
Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
“[s]ummary judgment is proper only when the record
demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Luv N' Care Ltd. v. Groupo Rimar,
844 F.3d 442, 447 (5th Cir. 2016). “A factual issue is
genuine if the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury
to return a verdict for the non-moving party and material if
its resolution could affect the outcome of the action.”
Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 798 F.3d
222, 226 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
On a motion for summary judgment, a court must
“consider the evidence in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its
favor.” Edwards v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 841
F.3d 360, 363 (5th Cir. 2016).
seeking summary judgment, “[t]he moving party bears the
initial responsibility of informing the district court of the
basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the
record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact.” Nola Spice
Designs, L.L.C. v. Haydel Enters., Inc., 783 F.3d
527, 536 (5th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and
alterations omitted). If the moving party satisfies this
burden, “the non-moving party must go beyond the
pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). “Where the nonmoving party bears the burden
of proof at trial, the moving party satisfies this initial
burden by demonstrating an absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party's case.” Celtic Marine Corp. v.
James C. Justice Cos., Inc., 760 F.3d 477, 481 (5th Cir.