NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a0466n.06 No. 11-2383 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T MARTI N TONYSOL OMON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MI CHI GAN DE PARTMENT OF CORREC TI ONS, Def endant, UNKNO WN TERVO; M. CODY; L . BU CKNER, Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : MARTI

N and CL AY, Circuit J udg es; HOOD , District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Martin Tony S o lomon, a Mi chig an prisoner proce eding pro se , appea ls a district court judg ment dismiss ing his c ivil rights complaint filed pursua nt to 42 U.S.C . § 1983. I n Marc h 2010, Solomon sued the Michig an Depa rtment of Correc tions; the Direc tor of the Depa rtment of Correc tions, Patricia Caruso; the M a r q u e tt e B r a n c h Pr is o n ; th e p r ison Warden, Ger ald Hofba uer; a prison corr ectional officer , J oel T er v o ; and two prison supervisory office rs, M atthew Cody and L ewis Buc kner. Solomon claimed that t h e defe ndants violated his Eig hth Amendment rig hts when: 1) Tervo sexually assaulted him on two occa sions during pat-down sear ches; 2) Cody

The Honora

ble J oseph M

. Ho od, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation.No. 11-2383 - 2 - and Buc kner failed to protec t h i m from Tervo’ s sexual advanc es; 3) Hofba uer err oneously ruled ag ainst him on administ rative a ppeal; and 4) Caruso fa iled to respond to “se vera l reque st letters.” The district court i s s u ed an order dismiss ing the complaint ag ainst the Depa rtment of Correc tions, the prison, Caruso, and Ho fb au er. The rema ining defe ndants filed a motion for summary judgme nt, to which Solomon responded. A mag istrate judge rec ommended that the district court g rant summary judgme nt in favor of the defe ndants, concluding that: 1) Solomon failed to exhaust his administrative reme d ies with respe ct to Buc kner and Cody ; 2) Tervo’ s conduct did not rise to the level of an Eig hth Amendment violation; 3) Buc kner and Cody wer e not deliberately indiffer ent to Solomon’s safe ty beca use they investigated his alleg ations and deter mined that the evidenc e did not support his complaints ag ainst Tervo; 4) Solomon’s officia l-ca pacity claims wer e barr ed by Eleventh Amendment immunit y ; and 5) Solomon’s indivi dual-c apac ity claims wer e bar

red by qualified immunity

. Solomon filed objections , gener ally stating that he objected “to the entire content of the mag istrate’s finding s.” He specific ally argued, howeve r, that: 1) the mag istrate judge err ed in concluding that he did not exhaust his administrative reme dies ag ainst Buc kner and Cody beca use the exhaustion require ment was excused by those defe ndants’ threats that he should not pursue any g rieva nce ag ainst them; and 2) the mag istrate judge err ed in rec ommending summary judgme nt on his claim ag ainst Tervo beca use Tervo’ s conduct amounted to a sexual assault, not mere sexual hara ssment. The district court overr uled Solomon’s objections and g rante d summary judgme nt for Tervo, B uckner , and Cody

. On appea l, Solomon argues that the district c ourt err ed when it c oncluded that: 1) Ter vo’s alleg ed sexually assaultive conduct did not rise to the level of an Eig hth Amendment violation; andNo. 11-2383 - 3 - 2) Buckner and C ody ’s allege d threats did not excuse his burden of exhausting hi s ad m i n i strative

reme dies. Solomon prese nts no arguments on appea l challeng ing the dismiss al of his claims ag ainst the

rema ining defe ndants. There fore , these claims are deeme d abandone d and not rev ie w a b le o n a ppeal. See Grace Cmty. Church v. Lenox Twp. , 544 F.3d 609, 618 n.1 (6th Cir. 2008). We will not revie w the mag istrate judge ’s rec ommendation that the district court g rant summary judgme nt with respe ct to: 1 ) S o l o m o n ’s claims that Buc kner and Cody wer e deliberately indiffer ent t o his safe ty ; 2) hi s officia l capa city claims ag ainst these defe ndants; and 3) his individual capa city claims ag ainst these defe ndants beca

use Solomon did not raise specific objections to these issues in his objections to the mag istrate judge ’s repor

t. See Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Although Solomon raised a gene ral objection to “all of the m ag istrate’s findings,” such a gene ral objection is insufficient to satisfy the objection re quirement. See Spe ncer v . Bouchard , 449 F.3d 721, 725 ( 6th Cir. 2006). The district c ourt did not err when it g rante d summary judgme nt in favor of the defe ndants with respe ct t o Solomon’s rema ining claims. We revie w a g rant of summary judgme nt de novo

. Dixon v. Gonzales , 481 F.3d 324, 330 (6th Cir. 2007). Summary judgme nt is proper “if the movant shows that there is no g enuine dispute as to any materia l fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt

as a matter of law .” F ed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Eig hth Amendment prohibits an y p u n is h me n t th a

t v io la te s c iv il iz e d standards of dece ncy

or ref lects unnece ssary and wanton i n fl i ct ion of pain. Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 102–03 (1976). A viable Eig hth A mendment claim has an objective and a subjective component. Farmer

v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The objective component requi re s that the pain be sufficie ntly serious within the context of “conte mporary standards of dece ncy . ” Huds on v. McM illian , 503 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1992) (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). The subjectiveNo. 11-2383 - 4 - component require s the plaintiff to show that the defe ndant acte d with deliberate indiffer ence to an inmate’s health or safe ty

. The plaintiff must show that prison officia ls had a “suff iciently culpable state of mind,” whe re the officia ls were awa re of and disreg arde d an ex cessive risk to an inmate’s health or sa fety

. Farmer , 511 U.S. at 834 (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). Tervo’ s alleg ed misconduct does not rise to a constitutional level. Minor, isolated incidents of touching , even if coupled with offe nsive sexual rema rks, do not rise to the level o f an E i g hth Amendment violation. See Boddie v. Sc hnieder , 105 F.3d 857, 859–61 ( 2d Cir. 1997). Solomon’s alleg ations that Tervo “sexually assaulted” him involve two brief inci d ents of phy sical contac t during pat-down s ea rc h es, coupled with sexually offe nsive rema rks. On one

occa sion, Tervo all eg edly g roped Solomon’s penis, both inside and outside of his pants, while making sexually sug g estive comments. Howeve r, Solomon acknow ledg ed that Tervo sear ched his “g roin are a,” indicated that he felt something, and then chec ked inside of Solomon’s pan t s while informing Solomon that he was chec king to make sure that Solomon was not stealing any thing from the ki tchen. Although Solom on alleg ed that he warned Tervo that he int ended to fi l e a gri evance

conce rning the pat-down, and that Tervo squeezed his penis hard enoug h to cause pain, Solomon did not alleg e that he was injured. On another occa sion, Solomon alleg ed that he attempted to leave the kitchen are a afte r completing his work detail, but that Tervo blocked his way , presse d his ere ct penis into Solomon’s buttocks during the sear ch, and made sexually sug g estive rema rks about Solomon’s b u t t ocks. He also alleg ed that Tervo gr abbed his penis. Howeve r, S olomon ag ain acknowledg ed that this conduct occur

red during a pat-down, that Tervo preve nted him from leaving prior to the patdown, and instructe d Solomon to comply with the pat-down. These isolated incidents of “se x ual” touching , even coupled with sexual rema rks, do not rise to the l evel of a constit utiona l v i o l ation. Id

. Although Solomon complains of conduc t that would cer tainly be improper , the rec ord ref lectsNo. 11-2383 - 5 - that the conduct was brief, and limit ed to the context of two pat-down sear ches that wer e war rante d afte r Solomon had compl eted his work detail in the kitchen. Moreove r, the prison conducte d investigations int o Solomon’s allegations, but di smissed them as unsupported by the evidenc e. Fur thermore , the district court did not err when it conclude d that Solomon was require d to exhaust his administrative reme dies ag ainst Buc kner and Cody prior to filing his § 1983 complaint. The Prison L itigation Reform Act of 1995 require s that p ri s o n ers exhaust “ava ilable” prison g rieva nce proce du re s b efore filing a § 1983 claim. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a ). “[E] x haustion is mandatory

. . . and

. . . unexhausted claims cannot be broug ht in court.” Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). A prisoner must proper ly exhaust his reme dies befor e filing his § 1983 co m p laint. W oodford v. N

go , 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006). Solomon does not dispute that he fa iled to exhaust his

reme dies ag ainst these defe ndants beca use he did not name them in his Step I g rieva nces. I nstead, he argues that Buc kner and Cody threatened him about pursuing a g rieva nce ag ainst them and that, pursuant to W

oodford , these threats relieve d him of his duty to exhaust his administrative reme dies. The district court proper ly reje cted this argument beca use W oodford does not st an d fo r the proposition Sol omon espouses. Rather, W oodford expli citly

require s proper

exhaustion before a

n inmate may

file a § 1983 c omplaint. Id

. We affir m the district court’s judg ment.