NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a0581n.06 No. 11-5531 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT J ACK BU RKE, J R., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. BRADL EY COUNTYGOVERNMENT ; SHERI FF TI M GOB BL E, I n his indivi dual and off icial ca pacity ; CAPTAI

N GAB RI EL THOMAS, In his indivi dual and of ficial capa city ; SGT. KEI TH HIXSON, In his individual and officia l capa city , Def endants-A

ppellees, J ASON FI

NT, Def endant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE E ASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

BEF ORE: KEI TH, GI BB ONS, and DON AL D, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. J ack Bur

ke, J r., a Tenne ssee citizen, appea ls the g rant of summary judgme nt for de fenda

nts in his civil rig hts action. Bur ke, who worke d as a corr ections office r at the Br adley County jail, filed a complaint ag ainst Br adley

County , the sherif

f, t wo of his supervisors, and an inm ate. Bur ke allege d that, on October 17, 2009, he was assaulted by the inmate. He alleg ed that his assault was made possible by county policies of underst af fi ng the jail and failing to train the staff. Moreove r, he alleg ed that defe ndant Hix son, who had been informed that the inmate threatened Bur ke’s life, never

thelessNo. 11-5531

Burke v . Bradley Cnty. Gov ’t, et al.

o rd er ed Bur

ke to enter the inmate’s cell. Bur ke alleg ed that defe ndants violated the Tenne ssee Human Rights Act as well as his f eder al civil r ights. The c omplaint, which was orig inally filed in state cour t, was re moved to the fe dera l district court. The county defe ndants moved for summary judgme nt on the g round that Bur ke’s exclusive

reme dy ag ainst them was under the Tenne ssee Workers’ Compensation Act, under which he alre ady

was c ollecting benef

its. The dist rict court g rante d the m otion and remanded the claim ag ainst the inmate to the state court. This appea l followed. Bur ke ar gu es t h at the district court err ed in concluding that he did not have a claim for a substantive due proce ss violation under the statecre ated dang er theory , or a claim under the Tenne ssee Human Rights Act, in addition to his worke rs’ compensation remedy

. De novo re v i ew o f t he rec ord shows that defe ndants wer e proper ly g rante d summary judgme nt, beca

use t here is no g enuine issue and defenda nts wer e entitl ed to judgme nt as a matter of law. See Spe rle v. Mic h. Dep’ t of Corr

. , 297 F.3d 483, 490 ( 6th Cir. 2002). Under Tenne ssee law, worke rs’ compensation is the ex cl usive reme dy for an employ ee injured during the course of his work. Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-108( a); Mathis v. Bowater, Inc. , 985 F.2d 277, 278-79 (6th Ci r. 1993). An exception is made in case s in which the employ er actua lly intended to injure the employ ee. Gonzales v. Alman Constr. Co. , 857 S.W .2d 42, 48 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). Bur

ke did not prese nt e vidence that the county defe ndants actua lly intended for the inmate to assault him. I n order to pr ove a claim under the state-c reated dang er theory rec og nized by this circ uit in Kallst rom v. City of Columbus , 136 F.3d 105 5 , 1 0 6 6 (6 t h C ir. 1998), it must be shown that a g overnm en t ac t o r incre ased a risk to a plaintiff who was espec ially endang ere d and that the -2-No. 11-5531

Burke v . Bradley Cnty. Gov ’t, et al. g overnme nt actor had the requisite degree of culpability

. Hunt v. Sycam ore Cmty. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. , 542 F.3d 529, 534 (6th Cir. 2008). I n the case of a voluntary employ ment relationship, this require s a showing of intentional ha rm, simil ar to the exception to the exclusive-reme dy doctrine. See id

. at 538, 543-44. For the same rea son, there fore , Bur ke failed to demonstrate a g enuine issue as to this element of his claim. Finally , althoug h Bur

ke cited to the Tennesse e Human Rig hts Act, he a lleg ed no fa cts that would demonstrate that he was subject to employ ment discrimination in order to have a claim under that Act. Te nn. Code Ann. § 4-21- 101(a)

. Acc ording ly , the district court’s judg ment is affirme d.

-3-