Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Medlock v. Miller

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division

August 15, 2014

JIMMY L. MEDLOCK, Plaintiff,
v.
GARY MILLER and CHIEF OF POLICE DAVID FLORY, Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court are competing Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 39 and 55. The case was referred for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. The Court has reviewed the competing Motions for Summary Judgment submitted in this case and finds as follows:

By separate Order entered today, the Court granted Plantiff's Motion to Amend Complaint and directed the filing of the Second Amended Complaint no later than August 29, 2014. This new Second Amended Complaint will add five (5) additional Defendants to this case.

Because Plaintiff is granted leave to add these additional Defendants, Separate Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39) and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55) should be DENIED without prejudice at this time. After additional Defendants are added and have answered the allegations in this lawsuit, the Parties should be provided another deadline for filing any motion for summary judgment.

It is recommended the competing Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 39 and 55) be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further recommended the Parties be given additional time to file any motion for summary judgment following the filing of the Second Amended Complaint and Answer or Response by the additional Defendants.

The Parties have fourteen days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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