United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS
JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. 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:
Plaintiff Halfacre, a state inmate confined at the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), filed this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, claiming the ADC disciplinary procedures violate his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process rights. Plaintiff asks for injunctive relief from Defendants. By Order dated June 30, 2014, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's equal protection claim, and dismissed all claims against Defendants Waddle and Minor. (Doc. No. 6). Service was ordered on Plaintiff's due process claim against Defendants Hobbs and Naylor, about automatic extra rule violations. (Doc. No. 8).
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Defendants Hobbs and Naylor (Doc. No. 14), to which Plaintiff has responded (Doc. No. 17).
Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that the ADC disciplinary procedures violate due process because each individual charged with a disciplinary violation arbitrarily receives an additional charge of failure to obey a verbal/written order of staff. This causes substantial penalties for those who commit even the most minor disciplinary violations. In explaining his claim, Plaintiff refers to the common practice of adding ...