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.

ANDREWS v. VANCE

December 6, 2005.

MICHAEL ANDREWS, Plaintiff,
v.
LIEUTENANT VANCE, C.O. FALLS, AND C.O. MITCELLE[fn1] Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES McCLURE JR., District Judge

*fn1 The defendants identify themselves as Robert T. Vance, James H. Falls, III, and Michael L. Mitchell.

ORDER

BACKGROUND:

  On March 15, 2004, plaintiff Michael Andrews, a state prisoner then incarcerated at SCI-Rockview, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania, filed the instant civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Andrews alleges the defendants, employees of SCI-Rockview, confiscated his mattress during a cell search and then deprived him of a useable mattress for two days. Plaintiff allegedly injured his back as a result of sleeping without a mattress. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of his filing fee, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Now before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment. For the following reasons we will grant the motion.

  DISCUSSION:
I. LEGAL STANDARD
  It is appropriate for a court to grant a motion for summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions 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 a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

  "If the nonmoving party has the burden of persuasion at trial, `the party moving for summary judgment may meet its burden by showing that the evidentiary materials of record, if reduced to admissible evidence, would be insufficient to carry the nonmovant's burden of proof at trial.'" Jalil v. Avdel Corp., 873 F.2d 701, 706 (3d Cir. 1989) (quoting Chippolini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 896 (3d. Cir. 1987)); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

  In evaluating a motion for summary judgment the court will draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the record in favor of the nonmoving party. Am. Flint Glass Workers Union v. Beaumont Glass Co., 62 F.3d 574, (3d Cir. 1995). The nonmoving party, however, cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by merely offering general denials, vague allegations, or conclusory statements; rather the party must point to specific evidence in the record that creates a genuine issue as to a material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 32; Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 252 (3d Cir. 1999).

  II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

  A. Defendants Fail to Comply with Local Rule 56.1

  First, we note that defendants have not complied with Local Rule 56.1 which provides in relevant part: "A motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, shall be accompanied by a separate, short and concise statement of the material facts, in numbered paragraphs as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue to be tried." L.R. 56.1 (emphasis added). Defendants have, however, included a brief six-sentence statement of undisputed facts in their brief in support of their motion for summary judgment. (Def's Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Rec. Doc. No. 47-1, at 2.) Although the defendants did not comply with the rule we are satisfied with this statement of the facts as it is supported by citations to the evidence in the record.

  Plaintiff's terse Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment essentially indicates that there is no dispute over any of the issues of material fact. (Rec. Doc. No. 57).*fn2

  B. Statement of Relevant Facts

  In January 2004, plaintiff Michael Andrews was an inmate incarcerated at SCI-Rockview. On January 6, 2004, plaintiff's cell was searched and his mattress was removed from his cell. This cell search was conducted as part of a "shakedown" at SCI-Rockview. On or about January 7, 2004, corrections officers offered to return plaintiff's seized mattress to him, but Andrews refused to accept his mattress. Plaintiff received a new mattress on January 8, ...


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.