United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. MARIANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Nathaniel Adderly ("Adderly"), an inmate who, at
all relevant times, was incarcerated at the State
Correctional Institution at Frackville, Pennsylvania
("SCI-Frackville"),  initiated the instant action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). The matter is
proceeding via an amended complaint. (Doc. 33). The
remaining Defendants are Corrections Officers Cowher, Glenn,
Reno, and Alshefski. (See Docs. 95, 96). Currently pending
before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgement
filed by Adderly on October 7, 2016 (Doc. 98) and by the
remaining named Defendants on October 27, 2016 (Doc. 104).
For the reasons provided herein, the Court will deny
Adderly's motion and grant Defendants' motion.
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. Nat'l
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, Ml 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
rule is no different where there are cross-motions for
summary judgment." Lawrence v. City of
Philadelphia, 527 F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir. 2008).
Cross-motions are no more than a claim by each side that it
alone is entitled to summary judgment, and the making of such
inherently contradictory claims does not constitute an
agreement that if one is rejected the other is necessarily
justified or that the losing party waives judicial
consideration and determination whether genuine issues of
material fact exist.
Rains v. Cascade Indus., Inc., 402 F.2d 241, 245 (3d
Cir. 1968). Thus, "when presented with cross[-]motions
for summary judgment, the Court must consider the motions
separately, and view the evidence presented for each motion
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."
Borrell v. Bloomsburg Univ., 63 F.Supp.3d 418, 433
(M.D. Pa. 2014) (citations omitted). "[E]ach movant must
demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists; if
both parties fail to carry their respective burdens, the
court must deny [both] motions." Quarles v.
Palakovich, 736 F.Supp.2d 941, 946 (M.D. Pa. 2010)
(citing Facenda v. N.F.L Films, Inc., 542 F.3d 1007,
1023 (3d Cir. 2008)).
Statement of Undisputed Facts
remaining Defendants in this action are Corrections Officers
Cowher, Glenn, Reno, and Alshefski, past and present
employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at
SCI-Frackville. (Doc. 105, Defendants' Statement of
Material Facts, ¶ 2; Doc. 113, Plaintiffs Statement of
Material Facts, ¶ 2). The remaining claims are as
follows: (1) that Defendants Cowher and Glenn issued Adderly
retaliatory misconducts on April 10, 2009, and (2) that from
April 10, 2009 through April 29, 2010, Defendants Reno and
Alshefski failed to provide Adderly with adequate
nourishment. (Doc. 105, ¶ 3; Doc. 113, ¶ 2).
Cowher passed away on or about August 23, 2016. (Doc. 105,
¶ 4; Doc. 99, Suggestion of Death of Defendant Cowher).
February 11, 2016, Adderly's deposition was taken. (Doc.
105, ¶ 5). Adderly was incarcerated at SCI-Frackville
from October 9, 2007 to March 2, 2010. (Id.). On
January 6, 2010, Adderly was in the Restricted Housing Unit
("RHU"), in EB cell 1. (Id.).
asserted that Officer Eidem assaulted him on April 5, 2009
and February 24, 2010. (Doc. 105, ¶ 6; Doc. 113, ¶ 6).
his deposition, Adderly initially stated that Defendants
Cowher and Glenn did not issue any misconducts to him. (Doc.
105, ¶ 7). He also testified that Defendant Glenn issued
a misconduct charging him with assault. (Id.).
April 5, 2009, Defendant Glenn issued Misconduct Number
B193825 charging Adderly with assault. (Doc. 105, ¶ 7;
Doc. 107, p. 42). The parties dispute whether this misconduct
was retaliatory. (Doc. 105, ¶ 7). Adderly contends that
he appealed the misconduct to final review. (Id.).
Adderly admits that he has no documentation of the appeal.
April 5, 2009, Defendant Cowher issued Misconduct Number
B193823 charging Adderly with assault. (Doc. 105, ¶ 8;
Doc. 107, p. 46). The parties dispute whether this misconduct
was retaliatory. (Doc. 105, ¶ 8). Adderly states that he
appealed this Misconduct to final review. (Id.).
Adderly states that he has no proof of the appeal because his
personal records were lost. [Id.). Adderly denies
assaulting Defendants Cowher and Glenn. (Id.).
parties dispute whether Adderly was interviewed by a State
Police Officer. (Doc. 113, ¶¶ 8-9; Doc. 114,
Defendants' Counter Statement of Material Facts,
¶¶ 8-9). Adderly states that he was interviewed by
a State Police Officer on April 6, 2009, and complained that
he was assaulted by CO Eidem, which was assisted by
Defendants Cowher and Glenn. (Doc. 113, ¶ 8). Adderly
states that he ...