PURDY v. ARAMARK LLC et al
| KEITH PURDY |
| ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES, ARAMARK LLC and JASON ENGLISH |
| 2:2016cv00337 |
| August 30, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
34
Entry Granting Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment - Keith Purdy, a former Indiana State prisoner, filed this civil action alleging that the Defendants, Aramark LLC, Aramark Food Services,1 and Food Service Director Jason English , violated his Eighth Amendment rights. Specifically, Purdy alleges that while he was incarcerated at Putnamville Correctional Facility, Defendants provided him with an insufficient amount of low quality food. In addition, the dining hall was unsa nitary because there were birds present and the fans did not work. Defendants seek resolution of the claims alleged against them through summary judgment. Purdy has not identified a genuine issue of material fact as to his claims in this case and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, Defendants' 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 3/21/2018. (RSF)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
