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.
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.
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).
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
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, ...