Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holloway v. Magness

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

July 31, 2014

WINSTON HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff,
v.
BENNY MAGNESS, et al., Defendants.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.

I. Procedure for Filing Objections:

This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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.

II. Introduction:

Plaintiff Winston Holloway, an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate, filed this lawsuit pro se and is proceeding in forma pauperis. He claims that the named Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. (Docket entries #2, #4) The Court previously dismissed Mr. Holloway's claims against Defendants White-Matthews, Austin, and Iko, as well the Doe Defendants. (#14, #62)

The remaining Defendants have now moved for summary judgment. (#76, #79) Mr. Holloway has responded to the motions; the Defendants have replied; and Mr. Holloway has responded to the Defendants' replies. (#86, #87, #88, #89, #90, #91, #92, #93, #94)

Based on the evidence presented, the Court recommends that the motions for summary judgment (#76, #79) be GRANTED.

III. Discussion:

A. Standard

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 as to any 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.