The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending*fn1 before the court is defendant's unopposed motion for summary judgment (Doc. 39).
A. Plaintiff's Allegations
This case proceeds on plaintiff's original complaint (Doc. 1), but limited to the claims that defendants Doowley and Weaver violated plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiff's other claims, including the destruction of property, have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleges defendants Doowley and Weaver failed to protect him from harm, and placed his safety at risk, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Specifically, he alleges defendant Weaver threatened to have him killed or assaulted, then followed through on those threats by refusing to place him in a special needs yard and by telling other inmates he was a snitch. He further claims defendant Doowley put razor blades into his food.
Defendants submit that the court has granted their motion to compel, and has deemed the requests for admissions propounded on plaintiff to be admitted, based on plaintiff's failure to respond either to the requests or to the motion to compel. Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to request another party to admit the truth of any matters relating to the facts at issue in the case or the genuineness of any described document. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 36(a)(1). It further provides that a request for admission is deemed admitted if a response to the request is not served within thirty days of service of the request. Rule 36 continues by providing "[a] matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court, on motion, permits the admission to be withdrawn or amended." Fed. R. Civ. P 36(b). The court is permitted to allow the "withdrawal or amendment if it would promote the presentation of the merits of the action and if the court is not persuaded that it would prejudice the requesting party in maintaining or defending the action on the merits." Id.
By operation of law, due to plaintiff's failure to respond to the defendants' request for admissions or the motion to compel, the requests for admissions have been deemed admitted. (See Order, Doc. 35). While the court has the ability to withdraw or amend the admissions, it may do so only upon motion by the responding party. Plaintiff has filed no such motion*fn2 , nor filed an opposition to the pending motion for summary judgment based on those admissions.
Given the above status, despite the allegations stated in the amended complaint, the following facts are considered undisputed given the requests for admissions having been deemed admitted:
1. JENNIFER WEAVER did not violate any of [plaintiff's] constitutional rights;
2. JENNIFER WEAVER did not violate any of [plaintiff's] rights under the Eighth Amendment;
3. JENNIFER WEAVER did not blackmail the appeal system toward [plaintiff];
4. JENNIFER WEAVER did not conduct a false interview with [plaintiff];
5. JENNIFER WEAVER did not tell [plaintiff] she was going to have [plaintiff] raped and beaten up;
6. JENNIFER WEAVER did not file false information to have [plaintiff] transferred;
7. JENNIFER WEAVER did not tell [plaintiff] that [he] should be dead by July ...