Harris v. Aramark Incorporation
2:17-cv-00872
S.D. OhioMar 2, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Herman Harris, Jr., a pro se prisoner, alleges that while working in food service at Pickaway Correctional Institution he was directed to use a highly toxic cleaning chemical without proper training, protection, or supervision and suffered chemical burns requiring multiple surgeries.
- Defendants: Aramark Inc. and Aramark Correctional Services, Inc. (Corporate Defendants); several individual Aramark employees; Chillicothe and Pickaway institutional employees (Individual Defendants).
- Amended Complaint asserts 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process), claims under OSHA regulations (29 C.F.R. §§ 1910.120, 1910.2200 et seq.), and state-law negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Chief Magistrate Judge Deavers recommended dismissal of many claims (including statutory OSHA/regulation claims and various federal and state claims against individuals); several defendants moved to dismiss; plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss some individual defendants.
- The district court reviewed objections, found many objections waived for lack of specificity, adopted the R&R in relevant parts, dismissed federal claims against all defendants (many without prejudice), dismissed OSHA/regulatory claims with prejudice, declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims, and entered judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Objections/Waiver to R&R | Broad/blanket objection to entire R&R preserves review | Specificity required; general objections waived issues | Court: general objection insufficient; many R&R recommendations adopted (objections waived) |
| Private right of action under OSHA/regulations | 29 C.F.R. standards support claims against defendants | No private cause of action under OSHA/regulations | Court: OSHA/regulatory claims dismissed with prejudice (no private right) |
| Equal Protection / Due Process claims | As pleaded in Amended Complaint | Failed to state federal constitutional claim; plaintiff did not specifically object | Court: Fourteenth Amendment claims dismissed without prejudice (adopt R&R) |
| Eighth Amendment — corporate deliberate indifference | Corporations’ failure to follow ODRC policies and gross negligence show deliberate indifference and liability | Complaint fails to allege a policy/custom or subjective deliberate indifference required for corporate §1983 liability | Court: Deliberate indifference claims against Corporate Defendants fail; dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim |
| Eighth Amendment — individual defendants | Exhibits and service paperwork show knowledge and proper process; plaintiff seeks to avoid 12(b)(5) dismissal | Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege any individual knew of and recklessly disregarded risk | Court: Federal claims against remaining individual defendants dismissed without prejudice; related IIED state claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991) (general/blanket objections to a magistrate judge's report do not preserve issues for de novo review)
- Meier v. County of Presque Isle, [citation="376 F. App'x 524"] (6th Cir. 2010) (failure to follow departmental policy is not, by itself, a constitutional violation in the Eighth Amendment context)
- Blaine v. Louisville Metro. Gov., [citation="768 F. App'x 515"] (6th Cir. 2019) (failure to follow internal policies can be evidence of deliberate indifference but, without more, does not establish it)