Opinion
Civil Action 2:13-cv-784
08-08-2013
TICO SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER VAN WINKLE, et al., Defendants.
Judge Smith
Magistrate Judge King
ORDER AND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Madison Correctional Institution ("MaCI"), brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is now before the Court for the initial screen of the Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Corrections Officer Van Winkle subjected plaintiff to excessive force in violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. He also alleges that defendant Unit Manager Braden failed to follow departmental rules in refusing to conduct a use of force committee hearing and that defendant Social Worker Evans participated in the decision not to proceed with the use of force committee hearing. Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendant Institutional Inspector Parrish refused to provide forms necessary for plaintiff to exhaust the inmate grievance procedure. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief. Complaint.
Inmates have no constitutional right to a grievance procedure. Young v. Gundy, 30 Fed.Appx. 568, 569-70 (6th Cir. 2002), citing Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430-31 (7th Cir. 1996). See also Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 467 (1983); Argue v. Hofmeyer, 80 Fed.Appx. 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2003); Keenan v. Marker, 23 Fed.Appx. 405, 407 (6th Cir. 2001); Mays v. Wilkinson, 181 F.3d 102 at *1 (6th Cir. 1999). Prison officials are not obligated to respond to an inmate's grievances in a way satisfactory to the inmate. Overholt v. Unibase Data Entry, Inc., 221 F.3d 1335, *3 (6th Cir. 2000). The fact that an inmate plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies before filing an action under § 1983 does not require a different result; federal law requires only that an inmate exhaust "such administrative remedies as are available" to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Certainly, if the grievance process has been foreclosed to the inmate by prison officials, the exhaustion requirement will not foreclose litigation to the inmate. Plaintiff's claims against defendants Braden, Evans and Parrish are based on an alleged interference with plaintiff's pursuit of internal grievance procedures. These allegations do not, as a matter of law, state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's claims against defendants Braden, Evans and Parrish be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
It is ORDERED that plaintiff's claim against defendant Van Winkle proceed. The United States Marshals Service is DIRECTED to effect service of process on defendant Van Winkle, who shall have forty-five (45) days after service to respond to the Complaint.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
________
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge