Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Williams v. Lackawanna County Prison

April 13, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: James F. McClure, Jr. United States District Judge

(McClure, J.)

(Mannion, M.J.)



On June 25, 2007, plaintiff Andre Christopher Williams, then a prisoner at Lackawanna County Prison ("LCP"),*fn1 commenced this civil action pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Williams complains that, while he was located at the LCP, he was provided insufficient food; assaulted by corrections officers; denied access to a telephone to speak to family, friends, and his attorney; denied reading materials, including access to the law library; and allowed only one haircut a month and one razor, without disinfectants, used by a number of inmates.

Before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by one of the defendants, Aramark Correctional Services, LLC.


The matter initially was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion.

In his initial complaint, Williams named the LCP*fn2 and Janine Donate, the Warden at LCP, as defendants. In an amendment to his complaint ("First Amendment"), filed on July 2, 2007 (Rec. Doc. No. 6), Williams added Correctional Officers Barry Craven and Scott Blume as defendants. On July 5, 2007, Williams filed a motion in which he sought leave to amend his complaint so as to provide Correction Officer Blume's full name and add a new defendant, Sergeant Chris Masci. (Rec. Doc. No. 8) ("Second Amendment"). Magistrate Judge Mannion granted this motion on July 17, 2007. (Rec. Doc. No. 13). On October 8, 2007, defendants Craven, Blume, Masci, the LCP, and Donate ("Lackawanna Defendants") filed an answer with affirmative defenses. (Rec. Doc. No. 31).

On March 10, 2008, Williams filed another motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (Rec. Doc. No. 40). Magistrate Judge Mannion granted this motion on April 3, 2008. (Rec. Doc. No. 42). In his April 3, 2008 Order, Magistrate Judge Mannion ordered that Williams file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of the Order, that the "amended complaint shall be complete in and of itself," and that the "amended complaint shall include any and all defendants whom the plaintiff wishes to name in this action . . . ." Id. at 1-2. Williams filed his amended complaint on April 24, 2008, in which he named as a defendant Aramark Correctional Services, LLC ("Aramark"), a company he claims provided food to the LCP.*fn3 (Rec. Doc. No. 44) ("Amended Complaint").

After Magistrate Judge Mannion granted the Lackawanna Defendants' motion for an extension of time in which to file an answer to Williams' amended complaint (Rec. Doc. Nos. 49 and 50), the Lackawanna Defendants filed an answer on June 26, 2008 (Rec. Doc. No. 52). Aramark filed an answer, with affirmative defenses, to the amended complaint on July 30, 2008. (Rec. Doc. No. 54).

On July 31, 2009, Aramark filed the instant motion for summary judgment. (Rec. Doc. No. 78).*fn4 Aramark filed a brief in support of its motion for summary judgment on August 6, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 80). Williams filed a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment on August 25, 2009. (Rec. Doc. No. 81).

On February 25, 2010, Magistrate Judge Mannion issued a nine (9) page report and recommendation. (Rec. Doc. No. 88). In his report and recommendation, the magistrate judge concluded that Aramark's motion should be granted, as Williams failed to put forth any evidence that would support his claim that Aramark had violated his constitutional rights based upon the food served to him while at LCP. Id. at 9.

Williams has not filed any objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The time for doing so has since passed. Because Williams has elected not to object to the report and recommendation, and because we agree with Magistrate Judge Mannion's thorough analysis and conclusion, we will adopt the report and recommendation in full. For the purposes of judicial economy, we will not rehash the sound reasoning employed by the magistrate judge. However, the present motion pertains only to Williams' claims against Aramark. Therefore, we will engage in a re-screening of Williams' complaint and amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).*fn5 Those claims not disposed of pursuant to this provision will be set for trial.


When screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) to determine whether the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court will apply the standard applicable to a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil ...

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.