United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
SYLVESTER O. BARBEE ADC #131311, Plaintiff,
ANGELIKA SMARJESSE, et al., Defendants.
BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Procedures for Filing Objections:
This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. Mr. Barbee - or any party - may file written objections to this Recommendation.
Objections must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for the objection. An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding of fact believed to be wrong and describe the evidence that supports that belief.
An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. A copy will be furnished to the opposing party.
If no objections are filed, Judge Holmes can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.
Mail your objections to:
Plaintiff Sylvester O. Barbee, an Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC") inmate, filed this lawsuit pro se under 42. U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #2) In his complaint, Mr. Barbee claims that Defendants Smarjesse and Weekly acted with deliberate indifference to his safety by failing to ensure sanitary food preparation, and that Defendant Austin acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs after he contracted salmonella.
All Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Mr. Barbee's claims against them. (#54, #57) Mr. Barbee has responded to the motions, and Defendants Smarjesse and Weekly have replied. (#61, #62)
Based on the evidence presented, the Court recommends that the motions for summary judgment (#54, #57) be GRANTED. Mr. Barbee's claims should be DISMISSED, without prejudice, because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies against these Defendants, as required by federal law.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents no genuine dispute as to any material fact. FED.R.CIV.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 246, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). A moving party must first present evidence that there is no genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must come forward with evidence showing that there is a genuine dispute that must be decided at a trial. Torgerson v. City of Rochester , 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). If a ...