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.

Green v. Scales

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Eastern Division

October 22, 2014

WALTER GREEN, ADC #143492, Plaintiff.
v.
VEREATHA SCALES and DANNY BURL, Defendants.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.

I. Procedure for Filing Objections:

This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. 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 Marshall 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. Background:

Walter Green, an Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC") inmate, filed this case pro se under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. Upon screening the complaint, the Court found that Mr. Green had stated retaliation claims against Defendants Scales and Burl. (Docket entry #4) Defendants have now moved for summary judgment on Mr. Green's claims, and Mr. Green responded to the motion. (#23, #27)

For the reasons explained below, the Court will recommend that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#23) be GRANTED.[1]

III. Discussion:

A. Standard for Granting Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is granted to a party 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 nonmoving party does not submit enough proof to establish a necessary element of a claim, the moving party is entitled to judgment on that claim without a trial. Celotex Corp., 447 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. at 2552.

B. Exhaustion as to Defendant Burl

Defendant Burl contends that Mr. Green failed to fully exhaust a grievance against him. The Court must consider this issue before addressing the merits of Mr. Green's retaliation claim against Defendant Burl. See Davis v. Harmon, WL 3259378, (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2010) (unpublished opinion) (holding that the trial court erred when it dismissed the case, with prejudice, ...


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.