GUY v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES

GUY v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES

Plaintiff:	DANTE D. GUY
Defendant:	ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES
Case Number:	2:2016cv00303
Filed:	July 26, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Terre Haute Office
Presiding Judge:	Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge:	Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 19, 2017	Filing 34 Entry Granting Motion for Summary Judgment - Plaintiff Dante Guy is an Indiana inmate incarcerated at the New Castle Correctional Facility. He brings this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Aramark Food Services, the company which pr ovides meals for inmates of the Indiana Department of Correction ("IDOC"). He alleges that while he was incarcerated at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility ("WVCF"), he broke a tooth on a foreign object in one of his meals. He further asserts that Aramark has repeatedly been notified of foreign objects found in the meals it serves, but has failed to rectify this situation. Arguing that Guy failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies with respect to these claims, the defendants move for summary judgment. Guy has not responded. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment, dkt. 30 , is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/19/2017. (RSF)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 19, 2017

Filing 34 Entry Granting Motion for Summary Judgment - Plaintiff Dante Guy is an Indiana inmate incarcerated at the New Castle Correctional Facility. He brings this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Aramark Food Services, the company which pr ovides meals for inmates of the Indiana Department of Correction ("IDOC"). He alleges that while he was incarcerated at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility ("WVCF"), he broke a tooth on a foreign object in one of his meals. He further asserts that Aramark has repeatedly been notified of foreign objects found in the meals it serves, but has failed to rectify this situation. Arguing that Guy failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies with respect to these claims, the defendants move for summary judgment. Guy has not responded. For the following reasons, the motion for summary judgment, dkt. 30 , is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/19/2017. (RSF)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: GUY v. ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: DANTE D. GUY
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?