United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
Jane Magntts-Stinson, Chief Judge
Purdy, a former Indiana State prisoner, filed this civil
action alleging that the Defendants, Aramark LLC, Aramark
Food Services,  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 unsanitary because there were birds present
and the fans did not work.
seek resolution of the claims alleged against them through
summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, the
unopposed motion for summary judgment, dkt. , is
Standard of Review
judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A “material fact”
is one that “might affect the outcome of the
suit.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The Court views the
facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and
all reasonable inferences are drawn in the non-movant's
favor. Ault v. Speicher, 634 F.3d 942, 945 (7th Cir.
2011). “The applicable substantive law will dictate
which facts are material.” National Soffit &
Escutcheons, Inc., v. Superior Systems, Inc., 98 F.3d
262, 265 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S.
party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine
issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). “[T]he burden
on the moving party may be discharged by
‘showing'-that is, pointing out to the district
court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the
nonmoving party's case.” Id. at 325.
case, Defendants have met that burden through their unopposed
motion for summary judgment. Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d
680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003) (“[F]ailure to respond by the
nonmovant as mandated by the local rules results in an
admission.”). By not responding to the motion for
summary judgment, Purdy conceded to Defendants' version
of the facts. Brasic v. Heinemann=sInc., 121 F.3d
281, 286 (7th Cir. 1997). This is the result of Local Rule
56-1, of which Purdy was notified. See dkt. 29. This does not
alter the standard for assessing a Rule 56 motion, but does
“reduc[e] the pool” from which the facts and
inferences relative to such a motion may be drawn. Smith
v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 426 (7th Cir. 1997).
provides food service at the Putnamville Correctional
Facility pursuant to a contract between Aramark and the
Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC).
meals provided to the inmates at Putnamville Correctional
Facility met, and continue to meet, the caloric and
nutritional requirements for inmates and are adequate to
maintain good health. The standard daily meals provide
inmates with approximately 2500 calories per day. The menus
are approved by a registered dietician to meet appropriate
dietary and nutritional standards for adult males. They are
also approved by IDOC and its medical professionals.
English is currently employed by Aramark. He has previously
been employed as the food services director at Putnamville
Correctional Facility. As the former food services director
for Aramark at Putnamville, English's job duties and
responsibilities included overseeing the day to day
operations of the kitchen. English did not make any personal
decisions regarding the meals inmates are served.
meals are prepared each day according to the menus using
specific recipes provided by the dietician. The food is
prepared by both Aramark employees and inmate workers. Each
day an Aramark supervisor meets with the inmate workers and
reviews the food preparation and service protocols. The food
is then prepared and served to the inmates or placed on trays
to be served to inmates who are in segregated or other
housing. This general process is followed for breakfast,
lunch, and dinner.
food portions that are served to inmates are served according
to the menus. These portions provide for the appropriate
nutritional and dietary needs of the inmates. The food sizes
are also measured in the production kitchen using specific
tools that provide the correct portion size. These tools are
called “spoodles.” The inmate workers are also
instructed, before every meal, on how to use the spoodles and
the specific amount of food to be served.
trays, silverware, cookware, and kitchen cooking surfaces and
areas used to prepare the food are also cleaned before and
after every use. These surfaces and utensils are
appropriately washed and disinfected before they are used
again. Aramark uses a checklist and cleaning schedule to
confirm these processes are ...