United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. Mariani United States District Judge
Thomas Mcintosh ("Mcintosh"), an inmate formerly
confined at the York County Prison, in York, Pennsylvania,
initiated the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (Doc. 1). The matter is proceeding
via an amended complaint wherein Mcintosh names
facility manager John McCoy as the sole Defendant. (Doc. 11).
Presently pending before the Court is Defendant's motion
for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 56. (Doc. 17). Mcintosh failed to file a brief in
opposition to Defendant's motion. The motion is deemed
ripe for disposition and, for the reasons set forth below,
will be granted.
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
summary adjudication, the court may dispose of those claims
that do not present a "genuine dispute as to any
material fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). "As to
materiality, ... [o]nly disputes over facts that might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly
preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing
the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106
S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once such a showing has
been made, the non-moving party must offer specific facts
contradicting those averred by the movant to establish a
genuine issue of material fact. Lujan v. Natl Wildlife
Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). Therefore, the
non-moving party may not oppose summary judgment simply on
the basis of the pleadings, or on conclusory statements that
a factual issue exists. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
"A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely
disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular
parts of materials in the record ... or showing that the
materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a
genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact." Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c)(1)(A)-(B). In evaluating whether summary judgment
should be granted, "[t]he court need consider only the
cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the
record." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3). "Inferences should
be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
and where the non-moving party's evidence contradicts the
movant's, then the non-movant's must be taken as
true." Big Apple BMW, inc. v. BMW of N. Am.,
inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1363 (3d Cir.1992), cert,
denied 507 U.S. 912 (1993).
"facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party only if there is a 'genuine' dispute
as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1776, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). If a
party has carried its burden under the summary judgment rule,
its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Where the record
taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to
find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for
trial. 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. When
opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is
blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable
jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version
of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary
Id. (internal quotations, citations, and alterations
Statement of Undisputed Facts
alleges that he was injured on July 17, 2012,  when he slipped
and fell due to a dangerous physical condition at the prison,
water that was leaking from the ceiling onto the steps in the
New South B Pod, (Doc. 11, Amended Complaint, ¶ 4; Doc,
17-2, Statement of Material Facts, ¶ 10). Mcintosh
alleges that Defendant knew of the water leak, failed to fix
the leak, and thus, placed him in danger of harm. (Doc. 11,
McCoy is the facility manager of the York County Prison.
(Doc. 17-2, ¶ 1; Doc. 17-3, Affidavit of John McCoy,
¶ 1). As the facility manager, Defendant is responsible
for supervising the maintenance and repair of the prison.
(Doc. 17-1, ¶ 2; Doc. 17-3, ¶ 2). At all relevant
times, a procedure was in place to notify Defendant of any
maintenance or repair needs that were found at the York
County Prison. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 3; Doc. 17-3, ¶ 3).
York County Prison has an inmate complaint review system that
permits all inmates to file a written complaint concerning
their living conditions, designated as an 801 complaint.
(Doc. 17-2, ¶ 4; Doc. 17-4, Affidavit of Clair Doll,
¶¶ 34). The inmate complaint review system requires
every complaint to be investigated and reviewed by the
grievance coordinators or grievance supervisor. (Doc. 17-2,
¶ 5; Doc. 17-4, ¶ 5). The inmate has the right to
appeal to the Deputy Warden, the Prison Board Solicitor, and
the York County Prison Board. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 5; Doc.
17-4, ¶¶ 6-9). All inmate complaints are entered
into a computer system and are part of the inmate's
prison records. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 5). If a complaint
involves the prison environment, such as a claim of a leaking
roof, a staff member must provide a maintenance request form
to the facility maintenance manager, Defendant McCoy. (Doc.
17-2, ¶ 6; Doc. 17-3, ¶ 4).
was housed in New South B Pod at the York County Prison.
(Doc. 17-2, ¶ 7). Defendant was not aware of a leaking
roof in New South B Pod on or before July 17, 2012. (Doc.
17-2, ¶ 11; Doc. 17-3, ¶ 8). Prior to July 17,
2012, there were no inmate complaints regarding a leaking
roof in the York County Prison. (Doc. 17-2, ¶ 7; Doc.
17-4, ¶ 11). Prior to July 17, 2012, Defendant McCoy
never received an inmate complaint form, or any other
evidence of any inmate grievance involving a leaking roof in
New South B Pod. (Doc. 17-2, ¶¶ 9-10; Doc. 17-3,
¶¶ 5, 7). Prior to July 17, 2012, there were no
staff reports of a leaking roof ...