NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a1096n.06 No. 12-1238 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T CARNEL LDAVI S, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. L OUI S MI RON, Correc tional Office r; CHERI E KONRAD, Corr ectional Of fice r, 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 : MERRI TT, MARTI N, and GI L MAN, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. Carnell Davis, a pro se Michig an prisoner, appea ls a district court judgme nt dismiss ing his c ivil rights complaint filed pursua nt to 42 U.S.C . § 1983. I n J anuar y 2011, Davis filed a complaint ag ainst corr ectional of f ic e r s L o u is M iro n and Cherie Konra d. He alleg ed that on six dates in Dec ember 2008 and March 2009, in re t al i at ion for Davis exposi ng himself to fema le corr ectional o ff i ce rs including Konra d, Miron was verba lly abusive, ref used to serve him seven meals, and turned off the water to his cell on one occa sion. Davis soug ht compensatory and punitive damag es. The district c ourt dismiss ed Davis’s complaint for failure to state a c laim upon which re lief ca n be g rante d pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) a nd 1915A. The district court’s judgme nt is revie wed de novo. Grinter v. Knight , 532 F.3d 567, 571–72 (6th Cir. 2008). Dismissal for fa i l u re t o state a claim i s appropr iate when the complaint’s fac tual alleg ations, taken as true, fail to show entitlement to relief

. Hill v. L appin , 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010).No. 12-1238 - 2 - The district court proper ly dismiss ed Davis’s reta liation claim. A prisoner establishes a First Amendment reta liation claim by demonstrating : “(1) [he] eng ag ed i n p ro t ec t ed conduct; (2) an adver se action was taken ag ainst [hi m] that would det er a p erson of ordinary firmness from continuing to eng ag e in that conduct; and (3) .

. . the adverse action was mot ivated at least i n part by [hi s] protec ted conduct.” Thaddeus-X v. Blatter , 175 F.3d 378, 394 ( 6th Cir. 1999) (en ba nc). Davis claimed that Miron reta liated ag ainst him beca use o f h i s s ex ual misconduct direc ted at Konra d. Davis’s sexu al m i s co n d u ct is not protec ted conduct. See id

. at 395. Thus, he failed to establish the first ele ment of a r etaliation claim. The Eig hth Amendment prohibits any punishment which violates civiliz ed standards of dece ncy or “involve[s] the unnece ssary and wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 102–03 (1976) (interna l quotatio n m ar k s and citation omitted). To establish an Eig hth Amendment violation, a prisoner must demonstrate that he was deprive d of “the minimal civiliz ed

measure of life’ s nece ssities.” Rhodes v. Chapman , 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Davis claims that Miron denied him seven meals over six day s betwee n 2008 and 2009, thus violating the Eig hth Amendment. Howeve r, the alleg ed depriva tion does not rise to the level of an Eig hth Amendment violation. See Cunningham v. Jones , 667 F.2d 565, 566 (6th Cir. 1982). Reg arding Davis’s claims that Miron verba lly hara ssed him, verba l hara ssment does not constitute

crue l a nd unusual punishment. Johnson v. Unknown Dellatifa , 357 F.3d 539, 546 (6th Cir. 2004);

see also Ive

y v. W ilson , 832 F.2d 950, 954–55 (6th Cir. 1 987). Finally , Davis claims that Miron turned off the water to his cell. This c laim a lso f ails to state an Eig hth A mendment violation. See Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am. , 2 57 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that alleg ations of temporar y inconvenienc es do not state an E ighth Ame ndment claim). The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.