United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 62] and Plaintiff's Motion
for Summary judgment, [Doc. No. 65]. The parties respectively
oppose the others' motions. For the reasons set forth
below, Defendants' Motion is granted; Plaintiff's
Motion is denied.
Defendant has, in accordance with the Court's Local
Rules, submitted a Statement of Uncontroverted Material
Facts. Plaintiff has responded to the Motion, but has failed
to support his response with specific citations to the
record. Plaintiff failed to submit a Statement of
Uncontroverted Material Facts. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7-401(E) of this
Court's Local Rules, Defendants' facts are deemed
admitted. Local Rule 7-401(E) provides:
Rule 7 - 4.01 Motions and Memoranda.
(E) A memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment
shall have attached a statement of uncontroverted material
facts, set forth in a separately numbered paragraph for each
fact, indicating whether each fact is established by the
record, and, if so, the appropriate citations. Every
memorandum in opposition shall include a statement of
material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue
exists. Those matters in dispute shall be set forth with
specific references to portions of the record, where
available, upon which the opposing party relies. The opposing
party also shall note for all disputed facts the paragraph
number from movant's listing of facts. All matters set
forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted
for purposes of summary judgment unless specifically
controverted by the opposing party.
Roe v. St. Louis Univ., 746 F.3d 874, 881 (8th Cir.
2014) (“If the opposing party does not raise objections
to a movant's statement of facts as required by Local
Rule 4.01(E), “a district court will not abuse its
discretion by admitting the movant's facts.”);
Ridpath v. Pederson, 407 F.3d 934, 936 (8th Cir.
2005) (where plaintiff did not convert defendant's
statement of material fact, it was deemed admitted under E.D.
Mo. Local Rule 4.01(E)); see also, Holloway v. Union
Pacific Railroad Company, Cause No. 18-1580, p. 3
(8th Cir. March 28, 2019)(per
curium)(“In light of [Plaintiff's] failure to
comply with Rule 7-4.01(E), we conclude that the district did
not abuse its discretion by admitting [Defendant's]
statement of facts. See Roe v. St. Louis Univ., 746
F.3d 874, 881 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing the plaintiff's
failure to comply with Local Rule 7-4.01(E) and concluding
that “[i]f no objections have been raised in the manner
required by the local rules, a district court will not abuse
its discretion by admitting the movant's facts”)).
is currently serving a life sentence at Southeast Corrections
Center, but the events at issue took place while Plaintiff
was incarcerated at the Eastern Reception, Diagnostic, and
Correctional Center. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
deprived Plaintiff of toothpaste for a period of roughly six
weeks from October 7, 2015 to November 20, 2015. He claims
that this deprivation cause swelling and infection in
Plaintiff's face and gums.
Webb was employed as a Corrections Officer II at ERDCC when
the events giving rise to this action transpired. Defendant
Crews was employed as a Corrections Case Manager I at ERDCC
when the events transpired.
was assigned to administrative segregation as a new arrival
to ERDCC in October of 2015. Plaintiff had no toothpaste on
October 7, 2015, as he was separated from his property being
held in the property room and was not given any state issued
typically get toothpaste from the canteen. ERDCC policy
requires offenders to purchase hygiene items from the canteen
unless they have (1) insufficient funds to do so (2) because
they spent their “entire monthly wage on needed legal
postage or legal supplies.” Toothpaste was available
for purchase from the prison canteen at the price of $1.78.
The State gave Plaintiff a monthly allowance of $7.50 to
purchase items of his choice from the prison canteen.
Plaintiff receives additional canteen funds from his family.
was aware that he could purchase toothpaste from the canteen.
On September 28, 2015, Plaintiff went to the prison canteen
with $22.29 in his account. Plaintiff purchased cheese
spread, cappuccino, hot cocoa, coffee, ramen, peanut butter,
jelly, crackers, and chips. He did not purchase toothpaste.
Plaintiff left the prison canteen that day with $5.76 in his
October 22, 2015, Plaintiff went to the prison canteen with
$8.76 in his account. Plaintiff purchased a legal pad, two
pens, and five envelopes, but did not purchase toothpaste.