As an initial matter, courts have consistently held “[s]lip and fall accidents do not give rise to federal causes of action.” Wynn v. Ankoh, No. 1:04 CV 37, 2006 WL 2583370, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 6, 2006); see, e.g., Williams v. Peters, No. 220CV00680RDPHNJ, 2021 WL 6496553 *4 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 22, 2021) (finding Plaintiff could not “establish that his slip-and-fall accident reflects a substantial risk of serious harm or that [Defendants] were deliberately indifferent to that risk.”), adopted by 2022 WL 130740 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 13, 2022); Harvey v. Plowman, No. 3:11CV437/MCR/CJK, 2012 WL 6135818 *3 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2012) (“This Court, as well as federal courts from other circuits have consistently held that slippery prison floors do not violate the Eighth Amendment.”), adopted by 2012 WL 6138339 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 11, 2012). The Court need not determine, however, whether the heightened risk factors in Plaintiff's case-walking down the stairs while handcuffed and wet from a shower-are materially different from a traditional slip and fall to the point of creating a serious risk of harm.

Consequently, “[s]lip and fall accidents do not give rise to federal causes of action.” Wynn v. Ankoh, 2006 WL 2583370, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 6, 2006); see also Smith v. Brown, 2012 WL 5392154, at *2 (N.D.Ga. Sept. 25, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 5392114 (N.D.Ga. Nov. 5, 2012) (same); Harvey, 2012 WL 6135818, at *3 (same). Accordingly, GEO's motion as to that claim is GRANTED.

; Wynn v. Ankoh, No. 1:04 cv 37, 2006 WL 2583370, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 6, 2006) (finding the plaintiff's allegations that he slipped and fell while performing floor stripping detail and wearing rubber boots with inadequate traction at most stated a negligence claim that was not cognizable under section 1983). Accordingly, Plaintiff's deliberate indifference claims fail on this basis.

Consequently, "[s]lip and fall accidents do not give rise to federal causes of action." Wynn v. Ankoh, No. 1:04 CV 37, 2006 WL 2583370, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 6, 2006); see also White v. Kimbrough, No. 1:12-CV-3581, 2013 WL 5436715, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 27, 2013) (concluding prison conditions resulting in slip and fall were result of mere negligence and not actionable in § 1983). Accordingly, Plaintiff does not plausibly state a deliberate indifference claim based on his slip and fall, and the Court should DISMISS his failure to protect claim against Defendants L.A. Jones, D. Bland, B. Smith, Mr. Stanley, and K. Rewis.

Consequently, "[s]lip and fall accidents do not give rise to federal causes of action." Wynn v. Ankoh, No. 1:04 CV 37(WLS), 2006 WL 2583370, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 6, 2006); see also White v. Kimbrough, No. 1:12-CV-3581-WSD, 2013 WL 5436715, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 27, 2013) (holding conditions resulting in slip-and-fall were result of mere negligence and not actionable in § 1983); Smith v. Brown, No. 1:12-CV-328-TWT-JSA, 2012 WL 5392154, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 25, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:12-CV-328-TWT, 2012 WL 5392114 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 5, 2012) (same); Harvey, 2012 WL 6135818, at *3 (same). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for deliberate indifference against Officer Adamkiewicz.

Plaintiff Gates is essentially pleading a slip and fall claim; however, a slip and fall accident does not give rise to a federal cause of action. See Wynn v. Ankoh, 2006 WL 2583370 (M.D. Ga. 2006); citing LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1457 (9th Cir. 1993) ("slippery prison floors ... do not even state anarguable claim for cruel and unusual punishment."); Denz v. Clearfield Co., 712 F.Supp. 65, 66 (W.D. Pa. 1989) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation based on slippery floor in prison cell); Mitchell v. West Virginia, 554 F.Supp. 1215, 1216-17 (N.D. W. Va. 1983) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation based on slippery floor in prison dining hall); Robinson v. Cuyler, 511 F. Supp 161, 162-63 (E.D. Pa. 1981) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation based on a slippery floor in a prison kitchen); Tunstall v. Rowe, 478 F.Supp. 87, 88-9 (N.D. Ill. 1979) (finding no Eighth Amendment violation based on a greasy stairway).

Furthermore, courts have repeatedly held that slip and fall cases do not implicate the Constitution. See Bacon v. Carroll, 232 F. App'x 158, 160 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that a prisoner's assertion that prison officials failed to warn him of a wet floor stated a claim of mere negligence and was not a constitutional violation); Reynolds v. Powell, 370 F.3d 1028, 1031-32 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding that slippery conditions arising from standing water in a prison shower did not pose a substantial risk of serious harm, even where the inmate was on crutches and had warned prison employees that he was at a heightened risk of falling); Beasley v. Anderson, 67 F. App'x 242 (5th Cir. 2003) (holding a prisoner's claim that he slipped and fell on a slippery shower floor sounded in negligence and was insufficient to allege a constitutional violation); Wynn v. Ankoh, No. 1:04cv37, 2006 WL 2583370 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 6, 2006) (collecting cases where the prisoner slipped and fell on a slick prison floor); Samuel v. Nolland, No. 2:11cv3417, 2013 WL 360263, at *3 (D.S.C. Jan. 9, 2013) ("A slippery floor also does not amount to punishment in the constitutional sense."). Here, Plaintiff's allegations give rise to, at the most, a claim of mere negligence; indeed, he does not even purport to allege a federal constitutional violation.