Opinion ID: 1422776
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Supervisory or Administrative Liability

Text: The district court dismissed the claims against Haeberlin, Rees, Dunlap, and Thomas for multiple reasons including that Grinter cannot maintain a claim against these defendants in their supervisory capacities. In his complaint, Grinter alleges that Warden Haeberlin and Commissioner Rees violated his due process rights by acting in a supervisory capacity and allowing their employees to violate Grinter's rights and for affirming the finding of guilt. Because § 1983 liability cannot be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, proof of personal involvement is required for a supervisor to incur personal liability. Miller v. Calhoun County, 408 F.3d 803, 817 n. 3 (6th Cir.2005). At a minimum, a § 1983 plaintiff must show that a supervisory official at least implicitly authorized, approved or knowingly acquiesced in the unconstitutional conduct of the offending subordinate. Bellamy v. Bradley, 729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir.1984). Grinter has not alleged that Haeberlin and Rees committed any actual acts, nor has he averred that they acquiesced in the conduct of their employees. Grinter also alleges that Internal Affairs Officers Dunlap and Thomas failed to intervene when Grinter informed them in writing that Knight's accusations were false. If Grinter is alleging that they were acting in a supervisory capacity, the claim fails. See Bellamy, 729 F.2d at 421. Furthermore, if the allegation is brought against Dunlap and Thomas for actions they committed for failing to intervene, the claim also fails. The denial of administrative grievances or the failure to act by prison officials does not subject supervisors to liability under § 1983. Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir.1999). To the extent Grinter is alleging that he was denied administrative appeals, he fails to state a claim because an expectation of receiving process is not, without more, a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Olim, 461 U.S. at 250 n. 12, 103 S.Ct. 1741. We affirm the dismissal of the claims against Haeberlin, Rees, Dunlap, and Thomas. In conclusion, for the reasons explained above, we affirm the dismissal of Grinter's due process claims against all defendants named in these claims.