Ricky Johnson v. Aramark

Sixth Circuit

Ricky Johnson v. Aramark

482 F. App'x 992

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedNovember 5, 2012

Docket12-5279

StatusUnpublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 482 F. App'x 992 (Ricky Johnson v. Aramark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ricky Johnson v. Aramark, 482 F. App'x 992 (6th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ricky L. Johnson, a Kentucky prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. *993 Johnson also has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel.

Johnson is incarcerated at the Kentucky State Reformatory. In October 2011, he filed an amended complaint against Ara-mark Correctional Services, LLC, Ara-mark’s Regional Manager Mark Geddes, Aramark Supervisor Bonnie Resnic, and Reformatory Warden Cookie Crews. In his complaint, Johnson alleged that he suffered injuries while working in the prison’s food service department, which is managed by Aramark. He alleged violations of § 1983; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. The district court dismissed Johnson’s action for failure to state a claim.

The district court’s order is reviewed de novo. Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 571-72 (6th Cir.2008).

Johnson does not raise his ADA and RFRA claims on appeal. Nor does he argue that the district court erred in dismissing his claims against Aramark, Geddes, and Resnic. Therefore, these claims are deemed waived. See Turner v. City of Taylor, 412 F.3d 629, 639 (6th Cir.2005). In addition, Johnson is not permitted to add new defendants and claims on appeal. See Foster v. Barilow, 6 F.3d 405, 407 (6th Cir.1993).

Johnson argues that he stated a claim against Crews. But his primary argument against Crews is that she failed to respond to his grievances, and the denial of a grievance or the failure to act upon the filing of a grievance is insufficient to establish liability under § 1983. See Shehee v. Lutt-rell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th■Cir.1999). To the extent that Johnson argues that Crews is liable for the alleged unconstitutional acts of other officers, “§ 1983 liability must be based on more than respondeat superior, or the right to control employees.” Id. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the claims asserted against Crews.

The motion for appointment of counsel is denied and the district court’s order is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Ricky L. Johnson, a Kentucky prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals a district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. *993 Johnson also has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel.

Johnson is incarcerated at the Kentucky State Reformatory. In October 2011, he filed an amended complaint against Ara-mark Correctional Services, LLC, Ara-mark’s Regional Manager Mark Geddes, Aramark Supervisor Bonnie Resnic, and Reformatory Warden Cookie Crews. In his complaint, Johnson alleged that he suffered injuries while working in the prison’s food service department, which is managed by Aramark. He alleged violations of § 1983; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. The district court dismissed Johnson’s action for failure to state a claim.

The district court’s order is reviewed de novo. Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 571-72 (6th Cir.2008).

Johnson does not raise his ADA and RFRA claims on appeal. Nor does he argue that the district court erred in dismissing his claims against Aramark, Geddes, and Resnic. Therefore, these claims are deemed waived. See Turner v. City of Taylor, 412 F.3d 629, 639 (6th Cir.2005). In addition, Johnson is not permitted to add new defendants and claims on appeal. See Foster v. Barilow, 6 F.3d 405, 407 (6th Cir.1993).

Johnson argues that he stated a claim against Crews. But his primary argument against Crews is that she failed to respond to his grievances, and the denial of a grievance or the failure to act upon the filing of a grievance is insufficient to establish liability under § 1983. See Shehee v. Lutt-rell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th■Cir.1999). To the extent that Johnson argues that Crews is liable for the alleged unconstitutional acts of other officers, “§ 1983 liability must be based on more than respondeat superior, or the right to control employees.” Id. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the claims asserted against Crews.

The motion for appointment of counsel is denied and the district court’s order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

482 F. App'x 992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ricky-johnson-v-aramark-ca6-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack