United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division.
ANTONE L. TAYLOR ADC #154829, Plaintiff,
RICHARD FRY, Defendant.
BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Procedure for Filing Objections:
This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Any party may file objections to this Recommendation.
Objections must be written, and they must be specific and include the factual or legal basis for the objection. An objection to a factual finding must identify the finding 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 Marshall 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:
Antone Taylor, an Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC") inmate, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining of sexual harassment. (Docket entry #2) He named Sergeant Richard Fry and Assistant Deputy Warden Christopher Bunik as Defendants. (Docket entry #2) The Court previously dismissed Mr. Taylor's claims against Defendant Bunik, as well as his defamation and equal protection (styled as sexual discrimination) claims. (#8) Mr. Taylor was allowed to proceed on his sexual harassment claim against Defendant Fry.
Defendant Fry has now moved for summary judgment on Mr. Taylor's claims against him. Mr. Taylor has not responded to the motion and the time for doing so has passed.
Based on the undisputed evidence presented, the Court recommends that Defendant Fry's motion for summary judgment (#18) be GRANTED. Mr. Taylor's claims should be dismissed without prejudice based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies 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 the ...