DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Roderick J. Johnson, appearing pro se, commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. He is currently an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”), confined at Green Haven Correctional Facility, where he is serving a sentence of 42 years to life for first degree rape and other sex crimes. See DOCCS Inmate Lookup Service, available at http://nysdoccslookup.doccs.ny.gov/. At the time of the events giving rise to this lawsuit, plaintiff was confined in the Monroe County (New York) Jail (“Jail”) in Rochester, New York. Plaintiff has sued a single defendant, Jeffery Rathbun, who at all relevant times was employed as a deputy at the Jail. Plaintiff alleges that Rathbun violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in connection with certain events in 2016. In short, plaintiff alleges that Rathbun deliberately put plaintiff’s safety at risk by telling other inmates that plaintiff was a rapist. Rathbun allegedly did so because he was angry at plaintiff for complaining that Rathbun had taken him off a certain job list.Rathbun has moved for summary judgment. Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order (Dkt. #29), plaintiff had until July 10, 2018 to respond to the motion. He has not done so.DISCUSSIONI. Plaintiff’s Failure to Respond to the Summary Judgment MotionRule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[w]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denial of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response by affidavits as otherwise provided in this rule must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party.”The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has stated that when a party moves for summary judgment against a pro se litigant, either the movant or the district court must provide the pro se litigant with notice of the possible consequences of failing to respond to the motion. Vital v. Interfaith Med. Ctr., 168 F.3d 615, 621 (2d Cir. 1999). In the instant case, defendants’ notice of motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #28-19) and the Court’s scheduling order (Dkt. #29) gave plaintiff ample notice of the requirements of Rule 56 and the consequences of failing to respond properly to a motion for summary judgment. The Court may therefore accept the truth of defendants’ factual allegations and determine whether defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Crenshaw v. Syed, 686 F.Supp.2d 234, 235-36 (W.D.N.Y. 2010). II. Defendant’s MotionIn the complaint, plaintiff alleges that he had been an approved barber for his housing area until Rathbun took him off the approved-barber list in April 2016. After plaintiff complained, Rathbun spread the word among other inmates that plaintiff had been charged with rape. Plaintiff alleges that a common “Jail-House mentality [is] that every crime is acceptable except for being charged with ‘Rape.’” Complaint14. Plaintiff — who testified at his deposition in this case that the victims of his crimes were ages 11 and 16, see Dkt. #28-12 lines 2-4–alleges that inmates at the Jail began calling him “baby raper,” “pedofiler” [sic], and so on, and that on one occasion he was physically assaulted by another inmate. Complaint
