Summary
adopting the report and recommendation to dismiss pro se prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim based on exposure to black mold, finding that "Plaintiff has not come forward with evidence to show that he is presently suffering a health condition due to exposure to mold and asbestos or that his future health is at risk."
Summary of this case from Franklin v. Giles Cnty.Opinion
Case No. 2:09-CV-961.
July 30, 2010
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs' Objection to the Magistrate Judge's June 22, 2010 Order and Report and Recommendation. The Court reviews the matter de novo, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). For the reasons that follow, the decision of the Magistrate Judge is affirmed.
I.
Plaintiffs Ronald Leonard and Cole Worthington ["Plaintiffs"] are state inmates who claim that their exposure to asbestos and black mold at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution ["CCI"] amounts to a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff Leonard sought a temporary restraining order, claiming that the exposure to mold and asbestos places him in "imminent danger." In his motion, Plaintiff requested that he be evacuated from CCI and that an investigation be ordered as to the presence of mold and asbestos at the prison.
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion for temporary injunctive relief be denied. In particular, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the claim sufficient to warrant interim injunctive relief. See Order and Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 25 at 7-8.
Plaintiff Leonard has filed an Objection to the Magistrate Judge's decision. Plaintiff argues that it is "abundantly clear that in Ohio prison officials are willing to deliberately expose inmates to toxic contaminants of friable asbestos and black mold of which the Defendants know to cause cancer and inevitable death." Doc. No. 28 at 4. Plaintiff argues that this demonstrates a substantial likelihood of success on the merits warranting injunctive relief.
The Court disagrees. As the Magistrate Judge observed, in order to establish an Eighth Amendment violation on account of alleged exposure to asbestos and mold, the Plaintiff must do more than offer conclusory assertions that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's health.
The test for determining deliberate indifference in contravention of the Eighth Amendment based on environmental conditions in a prison contains both an objective component and a subjective component. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993). In order to satisfy the objective component, an inmate must establish that his medical needs are "sufficiently serious." Talal v. White, 403 F.3d 423, 426 (6th Cir. 2005). In order to satisfy the subjective component, an inmate must establish that prison authorities knew of, and manifested deliberate indifference to, the inmate's serious medical needs. Id.Order and Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 25 at 6-7.
As the Magistrate Judge concluded, Plaintiff has not come forward with evidence to show that he is presently suffering a health condition due to exposure to mold and asbestos or that his future health is at risk. In addition, Plaintiff fails to show that Defendants have knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm and that they have been deliberately indifferent to the same. Thus, the Court concludes that temporary injunctive relief is not appropriate in this case.
II.
Plaintiff Leonard's Objection, Doc. No. 28, to the Magistrate Judge's decision is DENIED. The decision of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Leonard's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. No. 12, is DENIED.