United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Michael T. Parker United States Magistrate Judge.
MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss or alternatively for Summary Judgment . Having
considered the parties' submissions and the applicable
law, the undersigned recommends that the Motion  be
Junne Koh, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, is a post-conviction inmate in the custody of
the Federal Bureau of Prisons currently housed at McRae
Correctional Institution in Georgia. Plaintiff was previously
housed at the Adams County Correctional Facility (ACCC) in
Washington, Mississippi. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on
April 25, 2017 alleging that the prison breached its duty to
provide timely healthcare.
sued Kimberly McAndrews and Neely Greene, health services
administrators, because they denied his administrative
grievances. Plaintiff also sued Warden Stone in his official
capacity for the alleged delay in providing medical care. As
a remedy for these alleged wrongs, Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages and injunctive relief.
November 21, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion
 to add Bivens claims to his Complaint. Order
. On November 22, 2017, Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. §
1983 claims were dismissed. Order . Negligence, under
state law, is the only remaining claim.
filed their Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment  on
September 4, 2018. Plaintiff did not file a response. This
matter is ripe for consideration.
undersigned has considered the Motion  under the summary
judgment standard. “Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment
is proper ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admission 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
judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)). The Court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Causey v. Sewell
Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir.
2004). If the moving party meets its burden, the
“nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate
specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d
1069, 1066 (5th Cir. 1994). In the absence of proof, the
Court does not “assume that the nonmoving party could
or would prove the necessary facts.” Id. at
1075 (emphasis omitted). “It is improper for the
district court to ‘resolve factual disputes by weighing
conflicting evidence, … since it is the province of
the jury to assess the probative value of the
evidence.'” McDonald v. Entergy Operations,
Inc., 2005 WL 2474701, at *3 (S.D.Miss. Apr. 29, 2005)
(quoting Kennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone, 622 F.2d 887,
892 (5th Cir. 1980)).
of Grievance Appeals
sued Defendants McAndrews and Greene because they work as
health services administrators and denied grievance appeals
that Plaintiff filed through the prison's Administrative
Remedy Program. Plaintiff does not provide a clear
explanation of his claim against McAndrews and Greene but
only states “health services administrators in charge
of monitoring medical care are under-qualified or possess
questionable credentials. Kimberly McAndrews and Neely Greene
are both health services administrators although they are
merely nurses.” Memo.  at 2. Plaintiff then states
he is seeking monetary damages from McAndrews and Greene
because they denied his grievance appeals. Id. at 4.
The Complaint  and Memorandum  do not contain any other
allegations against McAndrews and Greene.
previously stated, Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983
claims were dismissed. Order . Only state law claims
survive, and simply denying an administrative grievance does
not give rise to a tort, constitutional or otherwise. See
Marquez v. Quarterman, 652 F.Supp.2d 785, 790 (E.D. Tex.
2009) (holding “inmates do not have a basis for lawsuit
because they are dissatisfied with the grievance
procedure.”); see also Geiger v. Jowers, 404
F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff's claims
relating to the denial of his administrative grievances
should be dismissed with prejudice.