Martin v. Gregory, No. 1:2016cv00029 - Document 6 (W.D. Ky. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Greg N. Stivers. For the reasons set forth, the Court will dismiss the action. cc: Plaintiff, pro se; Defendant (EM)

Download PDF

Martin v. Gregory Doc. 6 pro se McGore v. Wrigglesworth overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock “was found disable due to asthma.” Plaintiff states he “refused to go to work as a drywaller witch was volunteer services.” Plaintiff states that he has asthma “and the building had mold every where and [he] became sick.” Plaintiff continues, “I refused and begin a state inmate I was placed on county and other areas have black mold as well.” “daily and on the days they spray they close the bean flap and le orders.” Plaintiff states that the chaplin stated that “he would switch [Plaintiff] out because Dockets.Justia.com ] mention asthma.” Plaintiff states that ever since he has been on the “county side its answer is there busy.” he was placed “on the floor in a dorm full of county inmates” because of his “refusal to work.” Plaintiff states that he does not want his “[i]ts hard to acquire any documents or receive answer to request enied.” Plaintiff states that “ since I came to this facility.” “ booking only money from streets.” Further, , “T band such as lighter and ciggerettes and go back all recently.” See McGore v. Wrigglesworth Neitzke v. Williams Id. “ ‘ ’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly “ ” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC Gunasekera v. Irwin “ ‘ ’” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC Columbia Nat. ’ Res., Inc. v. Tatum ” McDonald v. Hall Clark v Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co. “ pro se ” Beaudett v. City of Hampton “ “I n thereunder.” respondeat superior Cox v. Barksdale v. Bradley Bellamy Dunn v. Tennessee . “ ” Potter v. Clark see also LeMasters v. (“ Fabian ’ ed a violation of the plaintiff’ Plaintiff’s personal ”). Detention Center. “ ‘ ’” Kentucky v. Graham Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y. See Lambert v. Hartman ’ Matthews v. Jones ’ Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex “ ” “ Hudson v. McMillian ” Ivey v. Wilson Wilson v. Seiter “ ‘ ’” Farmer v. Brennan B Hudson v. Palmer “ ” Atiyeh v. Capps cell “daily and on the days they spray they close the bean flap and leave us closed in here with strong orders.” See Abdur-Reheem-X v. McGinnis (finding that plaintiff’s claim that the odor of bleach from cleaning feces from his neighbor’s cell was not a health threat “‘to be so ’” and t “[a]nyone cleans a bathroom is exposed to the strong smell of bleach”) Helling v. McKinney Bey v. Luoma “[n]o Federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in a jail, prison, or other showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act.” “ ‘ ’ ’ de minimis.” Corsetti v. Tessmer de minimis claim, Plaintiff’s action fails See Jarriett v. Wilson ’ (finding that swelling, pain, and cramps which produced no medical findings was “nothing more ”); Jennings v. Mitchell de minimis ’ ’ de minimis Adams v. Rockafellow, 66 F. App’x 584, 586 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant since plaintiff failed to allege Pryor v. Cox 912, 1999 WL 1253040, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 1999) (finding plaintiff’s claim of Plaintiff’s Plaintiff complains that the LCDC “ and medical.” Plaintiff states that he “thought state pay was never to be tooken out for fines and booking only money from streets.” As is the case with all of the claims alleged by Plaintiff, he Newsom v. Norris . “ ” Carter v. Tucker ’ See Singleton v. Page prisoner’s James v. Quinlan Bailey v. Carter, 15 F. App’x 24 See Reynolds v. Wagner White v. Corr. Med. Servs. App’x 262, 264 (6th Cir. 2004) (“It is constitutional to charge inmates a small fee for health care where indigent inmates are guaranteed service regardless of ability to pay.”). In this case, ickles v. Campbell Cty. see also Mickelson v. Cty. of Ramsey ’ Cole v. Warren Cty., Ky. ’ Harper v. Oldham Cty. Jail Plaintiff’s “ solely respondeat superior ” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y. Searcy v. City of Dayton Berry v. City of Detroit Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y. Deaton v. Montgomery Cty., Ohio “ ‘ ’” Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t City of Wixom Coogan v. overruled on other grounds by Frantz v. Vill. “ of Bradford ‘ ’ ” Searcy v. City of Dayton “ municipality Polk Cty. v. Dodson ‘ ’ employees ” Pembaur v. Cincinnati pro se

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.