United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.
The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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 a 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 new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing 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 new hearing.
From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Plaintiff, Jamie Jacobs, filed this action alleging that Defendant Maples employed excessive force while restraining him. (Doc. No. 2). Defendant Maples has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 17) arguing that he is entitled to dismissal due to Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies against him. Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion, and the time for doing so has passed.
Plaintiff alleges that on an unspecified date, Defendant Maples restrained him with handcuffs (Doc. No. 2 at 4). He claims the handcuffs were too tight and that during their placement, Defendant Maples twisted his hand and sprained or broke his thumb ( Id. ). Plaintiff also claims that Defendant Maples placed a knee against his head and applied unnecessary pressure ( Id. ).
For his part, Defendant Maples states that Plaintiff was restrained on November 15, 2013, after he struck a correctional officer multiple times (Doc. No. 19 ¶ 3-6). He never struck or kicked Plaintiff, but took him to the floor ( Id. ¶ 5). Defendant Maples argues that no grievance regarding ...