United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
ARTHUR E. PIERCE, II, ADC #141254, Plaintiff,
MARK CASHION, et al., Defendants.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
H. DAVID YOUNG, Magistrate Judge.
The following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.
If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same time that you file your written objections, include the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the hearing before the District Judge.
From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.
Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR XXXXX-XXXX
Plaintiff Arthur E. Pierce II, an inmate who is currently incarcerated at the Randall Williams Correctional Facility of the Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC"), filed a pro se complaint on July 15, 2013. On July 24, 2014, Defendants Mark Cashion, Larry May, Emmett Patrick, and Loretha West, filed a motion for summary judgment, an addendum, a statement of facts, and a brief in support (docket entries #34-#37). Defendant Judith Savoy filed a motion for summary judgment, a brief in support, and a statement of facts, that same day (docket entries #38-#40). Plaintiff filed a response on August 22, 2014 (docket entry #42), and on September 16, 2014 (docket entry #52). Defendant Judith Savoy filed a reply on September 24, 2014 (docket entry #53).
I. Standard of review
Summary judgment is only appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The Court must view the facts, and inferences to be drawn from those facts, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp ., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). A moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party has failed to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 322-23. The Eighth Circuit has held that "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the ...