United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
WILLIAM W. SHAW ADC #155338, Plaintiff,
TIMOTHY FALOON, Defendant.
BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Procedures for Filing Objections
This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. Mr. Shaw-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 Miller 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 and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Plaintiff William W. Shaw, an Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC") inmate, filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendant Timothy Faloon was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. (Docket entry #1) Defendant Faloon has now filed a motion for summary judgment. (#12) Mr. Shaw has responded to the motion. (#16) For the reasons set out below, Defendant Faloon's motion for summary judgment (#12) should be GRANTED.
Mr. Shaw is an inmate in the Tucker Unit of the ADC. At the time of filing, Mr. Shaw had suffered from an ear infection for over two months. (#1, p. 4) Mr. Shaw acknowledges that he was taken to a doctor in Little Rock, but claims he was not treated. For relief, Mr. Shaw states that he needs to see an ear specialist to resolve this issue. (#1, p. 4)
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). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of a 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 respond by coming forward with specific facts establishing a genuine dispute for trial. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). If the nonmoving party does not come ...