under Turner v. Safley), aff'd, 64 F.3d 661 (4th Cir. 1995).
Skin testing is the preferred method of screening for tuberculosis. DeGidio, 920 F.2d 525 at 527. A chest X-ray "will not detect the disease in its latent stages." Bailey v. Goord, 174 Misc. 2d 632, 666 N.Y.S.2d 383, 385 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997). One year is "the most dangerous period" for development of active tuberculosis. Id. "The absence of a PPD test or an observation period under restrictive confinement would increase the danger of contagion among other inmates and prison staff." Id. (upholding against free exercise of religion challenge prison policy of restrictive confinement for one year of inmates refusing PPD test).
Defendants did not violate the constitution by effectively requiring plaintiff to take a PPD test or remain in segregated housing for twelve months. Indeed, in doing so prison authorities respected plaintiff's wish, whether religiously based or otherwise, not to be tested. Courts have upheld the forcible administration of PPD tests to inmates. See Ballard, 641 F. Supp. at 437; Hasenmeier-McCarthy v. Rose, 986 F. Supp. 464, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149, *12, 1998 WL 5448, *4.
To sustain his Eighth Amendment claim, plaintiff must prove that one or more of the defendants subjected him to a deprivation sufficiently serious to result in a denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities or exposed him to conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm, and did so with deliberate indifference to his safety or health. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 837, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811, 114 S. Ct. 1970 (1994). See also Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 365 (3d Cir. 1992)(segregated detention does not itself violate the Eighth Amendment "as long as the conditions of confinement are not foul, inhuman or totally without penological justification").
Plaintiff variously alleged or stated in a brief in support of an earlier motion that while in the RHU he was denied leisure library privileges, telephone privileges, regular visitation privileges and food, and was allowed out of his cell for only one hour each day. While depriving an inmate of food would violate the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff has presented no evidence to show that such a deprivation occurred.
The twelve 30-day PRC review reports show that plaintiff complained only about the lack of television and telephone privileges. In response, the PRC approved a telephone call for plaintiff in each of the last four months of his placement in AC status.
Plaintiff has not responded to the summary judgment motion. One cannot reasonably find from the record presented that any defendant violated his First or Eighth Amendment rights.
Defendants are thus entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, defendants' motion will be granted. An appropriate order will be entered.
AND NOW, this day of March, 1998, upon consideration of defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and in the absence of any response thereto, consistent with the accompanying memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED and accordingly JUDGMENT is ENTERED in the above case for defendants and against the plaintiff.
BY THE COURT:
JAY C. WALDMAN, J.