Summary
finding the plaintiff's allegations that he slipped and fell while performing floor stripping detail and wearing rubber boots with inadequate traction at most stated a negligence claim that was not cognizable under section 1983
Summary of this case from West v. InchOpinion
1:04-CV-37 (WLS).
September 5, 2006
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Richard L. Hodge (Doc. No. 24), filed August 3, 2006. It is recommended that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) be granted. Plaintiff has filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. Nos. 25, 26).
In his objection to the recommendation, Plaintiff continues essentially to make the same arguments that he made before the Magistrate Judge. He essentially continues to argue that the prison choice of floor cleaner and lack of adequate shoes caused his fall and injuries. As correctly stated by the Magistrate Judge, these allegations, loosely defined in legal circles as "slip and fall" cases, are nothing more than allegations of negligence. Negligent acts do not give rise to a federal cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 312 (1986). Plaintiff does not raise any objection to the Magistrate Judge's findings that Dr. Ankoh's medical care did not constitute deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's medical needs. Therefore, the Court rejects and overrules Plaintiff's objections. (Doc. No. 25,26).
Upon full consideration of the record, the Court finds that said Recommendation should be and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the order of this Court for reason of the findings and reasons set out therein, together with the findings made, reasons stated and conclusions reached herein. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.