United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
December 11, 2014
ERIC LEE ALLEN, PLAINTIFF
NEWBURN, et al., DEFENDANTS
Eric Lee Allen, Plaintiff, Pro se, Little Rock, AR.
For Orlando Newburn, B-Shift Sergeant, Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility, originally identified as Newburn, Vanorris Sims, B-Shift Deputy, Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility, originally identified as Sims, Benjamin Foster, B-Shift Deputy, Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility, originally identified as Foster, Brawley, Sergeant Grievance Officer, Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility, Defendants: David M. Fuqua, Kaylen Suzanne Lewis, Patrick L. Spivey, Sam Baber, Fuqua Campbell PA, Little Rock, 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 Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. 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 Miller 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 your objections to:
Clerk, United States District Court
Eastern District of Arkansas
600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149
Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
Eric Lee Allen, an inmate at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility (" Detention Facility"), filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket entry #2) Mr. Allen has now moved for summary judgment on his constitutional claims. (#26, #27) Defendants have responded to Mr. Allen's motions. (#28, #29. #30, #31) The Court recommends that Mr. Allen's motions for summary judgment (#26, #27) be DENIED.
Summary judgment is appropriate 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, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 246, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The moving party bears the initial responsibility of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must respond by coming forward with specific facts establishing a genuine dispute for trial. Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Only when the nonmoving party cannot come forward with enough evidence to establish a necessary element of the case is the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. at 2552.
B. Defendant Brawley
Mr. Allen argues that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law against Defendant Brawley because Defendant Brawley failed to respond to Mr. Allen's complaint within twenty-one days.
On October 22, 2014, Defendant Brawley was served with a copy of Mr. Allen's complaint. (#11) On October 29, 2014, the Court terminated Defendant Brawley as a Defendant. (#7) On November 14, 2014, the Court re-instated Defendant Brawley as a Defendant, and Defendant Brawley filed an answer to Mr. Allen's complaint. (#20) Because Defendant Brawley could not file an answer to Mr. Allen's complaint while she was terminated as a party Defendant, Mr. Allen's motion (#26) should be DENIED.
C. Defendants Foster, Newburn, and Sims
Here, Mr. Allen has not provided any evidence to support judgment as a matter of law in his favor against Defendants Foster, Newburn, or Sims. Although he attaches various grievance papers to his motion, he has failed to establish that the material facts are undisputed. Mr. Allen's self-serving conclusory statements cannot support a finding in his favor at this time. Moreover, because the parties have not had an opportunity to complete discovery, Mr. Allen's motion is premature.
The Court recommends that Mr. Allen's motions for summary judgment (#26, #27) be DENIED, this 11th day of December, 2014.