From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Magee v. Crowe

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Feb 19, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-3142 SECTION "F" (2) (E.D. La. Feb. 19, 2010)

Summary

stating that a “shortterm sanitation . . . problem, although admittedly unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional violation” and holding that placement in isolation cell for 21 days with a hole in the floor for a toilet, which could only be flushed from outside and was flushed only once or twice a day, which backed up into the cell while prisoner was sleeping, and in which prisoner could only shower twice in those 21 days, did not constitute an extreme deprivation

Summary of this case from Grayer v. Martin

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-3142 SECTION "F" (2).

February 19, 2010


ORDER


The Court, having considered the complaint, the record, the applicable law, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the failure of plaintiff to file an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, hereby approves the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as legally frivolous and/or for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1).

New Orleans, Louisiana.


Summaries of

Magee v. Crowe

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Feb 19, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-3142 SECTION "F" (2) (E.D. La. Feb. 19, 2010)

stating that a “shortterm sanitation . . . problem, although admittedly unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional violation” and holding that placement in isolation cell for 21 days with a hole in the floor for a toilet, which could only be flushed from outside and was flushed only once or twice a day, which backed up into the cell while prisoner was sleeping, and in which prisoner could only shower twice in those 21 days, did not constitute an extreme deprivation

Summary of this case from Grayer v. Martin

stating that a "short-term sanitation . . . problem, although admittedly unpleasant, does not amount to a constitutional violation" and holding that placement in isolation cell for 21 days with a hole in the floor for a toilet, which could only be flushed from outside and was flushed only once or twice a day, which backed up into the cell while prisoner was sleeping, and in which prisoner could only shower twice in those 21 days, did not constitute an extreme deprivation

Summary of this case from Harold v. Tangipahoa Par. Sheriff Office
Case details for

Magee v. Crowe

Case Details

Full title:FELTON MAGEE v. SHERIFF ROBERT CROWE ET AL

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Feb 19, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-3142 SECTION "F" (2) (E.D. La. Feb. 19, 2010)

Citing Cases

McBride v. Soignet

(“Courts have repeatedly held that an inmate has no protected liberty interest in becoming a trusty.”),…

Youngblood v. Gusman

In any event, although the conditions about which plaintiff complains were unquestionably unpleasant, it must…