United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JEFFREY J. HELMICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ashley Bentham seeks summary judgment on the remaining claim
set forth in Plaintiff Douglas Shine's complaint, arguing
there is no evidence Shine's hand was closed in a door
pushed by Bentham and no evidence he suffered broken bones or
nerve damage in his hand. (Doc. No. 16). Shine has not filed
a brief in opposition of the motion. For the reasons stated
below, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is
was incarcerated at the Toledo Correctional Institution in
Toledo, Ohio, when, he alleges, Bentham assaulted him.
He contends he cooked his food in the microwave with
permission from the male corrections officer. When he
attempted to put his cup in the doorway of his cell, Bentham
allegedly slammed the door on his hand and broke his
knuckles. He asked for medical attention and Bentham denied
his request. The Plaintiff was eventually taken to an outside
hospital and treated for nerve damage and a broken hand. In
his complaint he seeks monetary damages for assault,
intentional infliction of emotional distress and retaliation
for reporting the incident.
(Doc. No. 4 at 1(summarizing Plaintiff's complaint (Doc.
No. 1 at 4, 6))).
judgment is appropriate if the movant demonstrates there is
no genuine dispute of material fact and that the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
All evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to
the nonmovant, White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533
F.3d 381, 390 (6th Cir. 2008), and all reasonable inferences
are drawn in the nonmovant's favor. Rose v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 766 F.3d 532, 535 (6th Cir.
2014). A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury
could resolve the dispute and return a verdict in the
nonmovant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A disputed fact is
material only if its resolution might affect the outcome of
the case under the governing substantive law. Rogers v.
O'Donnell, 737 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 2013).
argues she is entitled to summary judgment on Shine's
Eighth Amendment claim because the video of the alleged
incident and the medical records show Bentham did not act in
a manner designed to inflict injury and that Shine at most
suffered a de minimis injury.
he failed to respond to Bentham's arguments despite
having been served with copies of the motion in a manner
consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I deem
Shine to have waived opposition to the motion. See, e.g.,
Hitchcock v. Cumberland Univ. 403(b) DC Plan, 851 F.3d
552, 566 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Humphrey v. United
States Att'y Gen.'s Office, 279 Fed.Appx. 328
(6th Cir. 2008)); Scott v. Tennessee, 878 F.2d 382,
*2 (6th Cir. 1989) (unpublished table decision).
Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of excessive force against
inmates held in a correctional facility. Hudson v.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992). An inmate who brings an
excessive use of force claim must show the officer
“acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind, and
the alleged wrongdoing must be objectively harmful enough to
establish a constitutional violation, [and] that the
defendant acted ‘maliciously and sadistically for the
very purpose of causing harm,' rather than ‘in a
good faith effort to maintain or restore
discipline.'” Richmond v. Settles, 450
Fed.Appx. 448, 453 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hudson,
503 U.S. at 6).
is entitled to summary judgment because the record does not
contain evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a
verdict in Shine's favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at
248. It is unclear from the video whether either of
Shine's hands in fact were within the door frame when
Bentham closed the door. (Doc. No. 16-1 at 17:30:03 -
17:30:05). Even if Shine's hand was contacted by the
door, the video does not support the necessary conclusion