Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McClary v. Godley

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

September 10, 2019

RONALD McCLARY, Plaintiff,
v.
CLARENCE GODLEY, Kitchen Steward, Defendant.

          ORDER

          LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the court on defendant's motion for summary judgment (DE 79) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The motion was fully briefed and the issues raised are ripe for decision. For the reasons that follow, the court grants the motion.

         STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         Plaintiff commenced this action by filing complaint on March 27, 2017, alleging defendant Clarence Godley (“Godley”) violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Between April 2017 and November 2017, plaintiff filed seven motions to amend the complaint. On November 7, 2017, the court entered order directing plaintiff to file one amended complaint particularizing his claims. Plaintiff timely complied with the court's order by filing the operative amended complaint on November 21, 2017. On November 28, 2017, the court conducted its frivolity review of the operative amended complaint and allowed the matter to proceed.

         On July 18, 2018, the court entered case management order governing discovery and pretrial dispositive motions practice, and also appointed North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. (“NCPLS”) to represent plaintiff for the discovery phase of the case. The parties completed discovery on or about December 26, 2018. On January 2, 2019, NCPLS moved to withdraw from representing plaintiff, noting its opinion that further appointment of counsel is not necessary in this action. The court granted NCPLS's motion to withdraw.

         On February 27, 2019, defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment. In support, defendant relies upon memorandum of law, statement of material facts, and the following: 1) excerpts from plaintiff's medical records; 2) declaration from defendant; 3) excerpts from Maury Correctional Institution's (“Maury C.I.”) food services policy; 4) MNT-4 sample menu; 5) Maury C.I.'s tray line accuracy reports from April 2016 through May 2018; and 6) declarations from third-party witnesses Demetrius Hines (“Hines”), Vondella Pratt (“Pratt”), and Raija Ellis (“Ellis”). Plaintiff filed response opposing defendant's motion on March 6, 2019, which relies upon memorandum of law, statement of material facts, and excerpts from plaintiff's medical records. Plaintiff's filed amended response on March 8, 2019, which relies upon additional excerpts from his medical records.

         STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

         As defendant moves for summary judgment, the court recounts the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff.

         Defendant is the food services manager at the Maury C.I. (Godley Decl. (DE 81-3) ¶ 2). Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (“DPS”), who was housed at the Maury C.I. from April 2016 to May 2018. (Id. ¶ 3).

         Defendant is responsible for managing all aspects of the Maury C.I.'s food services operation, including supervising food services staff, procuring food and other supplies, managing inventory, and assuring compliance with sanitation and food safety standards. (Id. ¶ 5). Inmate meal trays are prepared by other inmates employed in the Maury C.I. kitchen under supervision of food services officers and supervisors. (Id. ¶ 10; Hines Decl. (DE 81-7) ¶ 3; Pratt Decl. (DE 81-8) ¶ 3; Ellis Decl. (DE 81-9) ¶ 3). Defendant is the head supervisor over all DPS employees and inmates employed in the kitchen and he does not ordinarily prepare inmate meal trays. (Godley Decl. (DE 81-3) ¶ 10).

         Plaintiff has been prescribed the “MNT-4” therapeutic diet. (Id. ¶ 13). The MNT-4 diet provides for daily intake of 3, 000 calories, and is low in fat and sodium, high in fiber, and provides carbohydrate content and calorie restrictions. (Id. ¶ 8; Maury C.I. Food Services Policy (DE 81-4) at 4). Registered dieticians write the MNT-4 menu, but defendant is responsible for ensuring that all inmates prescribed that diet receive meal trays containing items from the MNT-4 menu and appropriate portion sizes. (Godley Decl. (DE 81-3) ¶¶ 6-7; Maury C.I. Food Services Policy (DE 81-4) at 1).[1]

         When plaintiff arrived at the Maury C.I., he notified defendant that he did not believe his meal trays complied with the MNT-4 diet and menu requirements. (Godley Decl. (DE 81-3) ¶ 13). Plaintiff's medical records indicate that his weight dropped to 163 pounds after one year of incarceration at the Maury C.I., which is approximately 10% below his ideal body weigh. (See, e.g., Medical Records (DE 81-2) at 1). Plaintiff's medical records, however, also reflect that his weight fluctuated during the relevant time period. (See id. at 1-9). At times, plaintiff weighed 178 pounds, which is within 98% of his ideal body weight. (See id.).

         Defendant submitted uncontradicted evidence that plaintiff's MNT-4 meal trays were “regularly” double or triple checked by either defendant himself or a DPS food services supervisor/officer to ensure the trays were compliant with the MNT-4 diet. (Godley Decl. (DE 81-3) ¶ 14; Hines Decl. (DE 81-7) ¶ 8; Pratt Decl. (DE 81-8) ¶ 8; Ellis Decl. (DE 81-9) ¶ 8). The undisputed record evidence also reflects that defendant instructed DPS food services employees to confirm plaintiff's MNT-4 trays were accurate. (Hines Decl. (DE 81-7) ¶ 8; Pratt Decl. (DE 81-8) ¶ 8; Ellis Decl. (DE 81-9) ¶ 8). Finally, defendant submitted monthly tray line accuracy reports for the period April 2016 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.