MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AMY J. ST. EVE, District Judge

Plaintiff Delreico Jason Jolley brings this one-count Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendant Aramark Correctional Services, Inc. ("Aramark") violated his Eighth Amendment rights by subjecting him to cruel and unusual conditions of confinement, more specifically, that Aramark served spoiled juice, milk, and food to the inmates of Division 11 in the Cook County Jail. Before the Court is Aramark's Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). For the following reasons, the Court grants Aramark's motion.

BACKGROUND

Defendant Aramark provides food service for the Cook County Jail where Jolley was a pre-trial detainee in Division 11 during the summer of 2003. (R. 52-1, Defendant's Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts, ¶¶ 2, 3.) At his deposition, Jolley testified that while he was in Division 11, he was served spoiled juice and milk. ( Id. ¶ 5.) On or about June 24, 2003, Jolley and his cellmate, Herbert Powell, drafted a group grievance concerning spoiled milk and juice that all the Division 11 detainees signed. ( Id. ¶ 6, Ex. E.) On July 10, 2003, Jolley filed another grievance about spoiled food, milk, and juice. ( Id.) An Aramark employee, Donna Whims, acknowledged receipt of the grievances and responded to Division 11 that one of the refrigeration units at the kitchen facility was under repair during the time period identified. ( Id., Ex. F.) She further explained that the milk was replaced upon request. ( Id.)

At her deposition, Whims testified that upon receiving Jolley's grievances, she conducted an investigation and contacted Division 11's office to ascertain the events giving rise to Jolley's grievances. ( Id. ¶ 13.) She spoke with the supervisor/cook at Division 11 who informed her of the complaints and that the milk had been replaced. ( Id.) Whims also explained that in general when stocking food and beverages at Division 11, the staff rotated the products forward so that newer items were placed in the back of the refrigerators and freezers. ( Id. ¶ 10.) She also testified that if a product was not used prior to its expiration date, the staff discarded the expired product. ( Id. ¶ 11.) Further, Whims testified that the policy concerning food spoilage was "when in doubt, throw it out." ( Id. ¶ 12.) In addition, Jolley appealed his grievances, to which the appeal board responded that they would continue to monitor the situation. ( Id. ¶ 6, Ex. E.)

During the relevant time period, Jolley testified that he suffered from bouts of diarrhea and that he saw a nurse on June 25, 2003, for his complaints of diarrhea. ( Id. ¶ 17.) Jolley's medical chart, however, contains no entries by any medical personnel for this time period. ( Id.) In addition, as of April 20, 2003, which was prior to his allegations of food spoilage, Jolley was taking Zantac for peptic ulcer disease. ( Id. ¶ 18.) Specifically, the on-staff physician with Cermak Health Services, Dr. Enoch Analglate, testified that Jolley had been diagnosed with peptic ulcer disease which included abdominal pain in the upper abdominal area related to food, and included symptoms of acid reflux, belching, and burning. ( Id.) Dr. Analglate further testified that he was unable to locate any request forms filled out by Jolley for the need to see a medical care provider for abdominal pain, cramping, diarrhea, or other complaints that he would attribute to food poisoning. ( Id. ¶ 20.)

The record, however, does indicate that Jolley sought treatment from Cermak Health Services during the relevant time period, albeit not related to any gastrointestinal problems. For example, in July 2003, Jolley sought treatment from the Cermak Health Services concerning complaints of back pain and disk problems. ( Id. ¶ 21.) Further, in August 2003, Dr. Analglate saw Jolley concerning a cold and noted a prior history of hypertension and peptic ulcer disease. ( Id. ¶ 22.) Jolley, however, did not report to Dr. Analglate that he had episodes of diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal discomfort during the August 2003 visit. ( Id.)

Approximately eight months after Jolley and Division 11 filed their food spoilage grievances, Jolley complained of abdominal pain, but Dr. Analglate concluded that Jolley's complaints were not medical manifestations of a gastrointestinal problem. ( Id. ¶ 23.) Finally, in June 25, 2004, Jolley complained of excessive belching after eating bologna and drinking milk. ( Id. ¶ 24.) Dr. Analglate linked Jolley's excessive belching to his eating certain foods. ( Id.)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper when "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 to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists only if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of establishing the lack of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The existence of a factual dispute is not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion, instead the non-moving party must present definite, competent evidence to rebut the summary judgment motion. Butts v. Aurora Health Care, Inc., 387 F.3d 921, 924 (7^th Cir. 2004).

ANALYSIS

Jolley alleges that certain conditions of his confinement, namely, spoiled food, constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. "The Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment protects prisoners from the `unnecessary and wanton infliction' of pain by the state." Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d. 879, 881 (7^th Cir. 2004) (citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5-6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992)). It is "cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions." Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315-316, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 2457-2458, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982). Certain conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment when there is a denial of basic human needs, such as food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and reasonable safety. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 32, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993); Kitzman-Kelley v. Warner, 203 F.3d 454, 458 (7^th Cir. 2000). As such, an inmate is entitled to a healthy, habitable environment that includes "providing nutritionally adequate food that is prepared and served under conditions which do not present an immediate danger to the health and well being of the inmates who consume it." French v. Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7^th Cir. 1985) (citation and quotations omitted).

To establish his Eighth Amendment claim, Jolley must show that (1) the conditions of his confinement posed a substantial risk of serious harm; and (2) the jail officials knew of and disregarded his needs. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904, 908 (7^th Cir. 2005). Negligence or gross negligence on the part of the jail officials is not sufficient for liability; instead, an official must act in an intentional or criminally reckless manner. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837; Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478 (7^th Cir. 2005).

The Court turns to the second Farmer requirement, that is, whether the jail officials were deliberately indifferent to Jolley's safety, because it is dispositive. "[P]rison officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted." Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844. In other words: "The test of deliberate indifference ensures that the mere failure of the prison official to choose the best course of action does not amount to a constitutional violation." Peate v. McCann, 294 F.3d 879, 882 (7^th Cir. 2002).

Here, it is undisputed that once Aramark employee, Donna Whims, received Jolley's grievances, she conducted an investigation in which she contacted Division 11's office to ascertain the events giving rise to Jolley's complaints. Whims spoke with the supervisor/cook at Division 11, who informed her of the complaints and that the milk had been replaced. Whims then acknowledged receipt of the grievances and responded to Division 11 that one of the refrigeration units at the kitchen facility was under repair during the time period. She also explained that the milk was replaced upon request. The Appeal Board further responded to Jolley's grievance by stating that it would continue to monitor the situation.

Based on these undisputed facts, the Court would be hard-pressed to conclude that Whims' response to Jolley's spoiled milk grievances was unreasonable, and thus evidence of Whims' deliberate indifference to Jolley's health. See Perez v. Sullivan, 100 Fed. Appx. 564, 567 (7^th Cir. June 3, 2004) (unpublished opinion). In Perez, a state inmate complained of ingesting spoiled milk, to which the dietary manager responded by explaining that the milk was served according to the date on the carton and that the spoiled milk was an isolated incident. See id. Based on this explanation, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the prison employees responsible for the food handling were not deliberately indifferent to the inmate's health, but merely negligent. See id.

Again, not only did Whims specifically investigate Jolley's grievances, evidence in the record indicates that the general policies at Division 11 included the rotation of food and beverages to avoid spoilage and the discarding of expired food products. Although Jolley argues that Aramark merely moved the food from the broken-down cooler to another cooler, he has not set forth definite, competent evidence rebutting Aramark's policies as described above. See Butts, 387 F.3d at 924. As such, Jolley's argument that Aramark had no system in place to determine if food was spoiled and that this lack of a system constituted deliberate indifference fails.

CONCLUSION