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.

Pinder v. McDowell

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

November 20, 2014

STEVEN PINDER ADC #123397, PLAINTIFF
v.
ALVA GREEN McDOWELL, et al., DEFENDANTS

Steven Pinder, ADC #123397, Plaintiff, Pro se, Tucker, AR.

PARTIAL RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

BETH M. DEERE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

I. Procedures for Filing Objections:

This Partial Recommended Disposition (" Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody, 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 Moody 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 all objections to:

Clerk, United States District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas
600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149
Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

II. Discussion:

Steven Pinder, an Arkansas Department of Correction (" ADC") inmate, filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was denied adequate medical treatment. In addition, he claims that he his first amendment rights were violated. In his complaint, Mr. Pinder names the ADC as a party Defendant. The ADC, however, is not considered a " person" that can be sued under § 1983. Brown v. Missouri Dep't of Corr., 353 F.3d 1038, 1041 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Accordingly, Mr. Pinder's claims against the ADC must be dismissed.

III. Conclusion:

The Court recommends that Mr. Pinder's claims against the ADC be DISMISSED, with prejudice. Claims against the remaining Defendants should be allowed to proceed.


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.