United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION United States District Judge
Thompson Yancey, an inmate presently confined in the State
Correctional Institution, Camp Hill (“SCI-Camp
Hill”), Pennsylvania, filed this pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. (Doc. 1). The
named Defendants are the following SCI-Camp Hill employees:
C.A. Snyder, CO Crokus, CO McBeth, and CO Keller.
Id. Presently before the Court is Defendants'
motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 16). Defendants
seek entry of judgment based on Plaintiff's failure to
exhaust available administrative remedies. Id. The
motion has been fully briefed, and is ripe for disposition.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)
“[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “[T]his
standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged
factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an
otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material
fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 247-48 (1986).
disputed fact is “material” if proof of its
existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the
case under applicable substantive law. Anderson, 477
U.S. at 248; Gray v. York Newspapers, Inc., 957 F.2d
1070, 1078 (3d Cir. 1992). An issue of material fact is
“genuine” if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257; Brenner v.
Local 514, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, 927 F.2d 1283, 1287-88 (3d Cir. 1991).
determining whether there is a genuine issue of material
fact, the court must view the facts and all reasonable
inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Moore v.
Tartler, 986 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1993); Clement v.
Consolidated Rail Corporation, 963 F.2d 599, 600 (3d
Cir. 1992); White v. Westinghouse Electric Company,
862 F.2d 56, 59 (3d Cir. 1988). In order to avoid
summary judgment, however, parties may not rely on
unsubstantiated allegations. Parties seeking to establish
that a fact is or is not genuinely disputed must support such
an assertion by “citing to particular parts of
materials in the record, ” by showing that an adverse
party's factual assertion lacks support from cited
materials, or demonstrating that a factual assertion is
unsupportable by admissible evidence. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1);
see Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (requiring evidentiary
support for factual assertions made in response to summary
judgment). The party opposing the motion “must do more
than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to
the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Parties must
produce evidence to show the existence of every element
essential to its case that they bear the burden of proving at
trial, for “a complete failure of proof concerning an
essential element of the nonmoving party's case
necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323; see Harter v. G.A.F.
Corp., 967 F.2d 846, 851 (3d Cir.1992). Failure to
properly support or contest an assertion of fact may result
in the fact being considered undisputed for the purpose of
the motion, although a court may also give parties an
opportunity to properly provide support or opposition.
Statement of Facts
December 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed the above captioned action,
alleging an excessive use of force by Defendants on April 15,
2015, and a deliberate indifference to his medical needs for
the injuries resulting therefrom. (Doc. 1).
April 15, 2015, Plaintiff was issued Misconduct No. B476387
for assault and Misconduct No. B476388 for threatening an
employee or their family with bodily harm. (Doc.
19-6 at 2, Misconduct History). Plaintiff was found
guilty of both misconducts and sanctioned to 90 days
disciplinary custody on each misconduct. (Doc. 19-9
at 2, Declaration of Joseph Dupont, Chief Hearing Examiner).
No appeal from either misconduct was ever filed. Id.
April 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed Grievance No. 563115, in
which he alleges that on April 15, 2015, while being escorted
to the visiting room, he was walking “towards the exit
door” when he was “slammed down by officers'
force fully to the ground, punch[ed] or kick[ed] repeatedly
in the ribs, face or stomach, when [he] wasn't resisting
at all.” (Doc. 19-3 at 2, Official Inmate
April 27, 2015, Plaintiff was issued a notice of
investigation, indicating that an investigation into the
allegations of abuse contained in his grievance was underway,
and that an extension of time to respond to his grievance was
necessary in order to appropriately investigate and respond.
(Doc. 19-3 at 3, Extension).
27, 2015, an Initial Review Response to Grievance No. 563115
was issued, denying Plaintiff's grievance as follows:
An investigation was conducted on behalf of the SCI-Camp Hill
Security Office concerning your ...