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.

Coleman v. Woodard

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

March 3, 2015

DELWRICK COLEMAN ADC #656538, Plaintiff,
v.
BENJAMIN R. WOODARD, Defendant.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

H. DAVID YOUNG, Magistrate Judge.

The following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. 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:

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff Delwrick Coleman, an Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC") inmate, filed a pro se complaint (docket entry #2), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, and state laws, on July 14, 2014, alleging that Defendant Benjamin R. Woodard used excessive force against him in an April 1, 2014, incident at the ADC's East Arkansas Regional Unit. On January 23, 2015, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, a brief in support, and a statement of facts (docket entries #46-#48). Plaintiff filed a response on February 11, 2015 (docket entry #62), and Defendant filed a reply on February 12, 2015 (docket entry #63).[1] Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment, along with a brief in support, on February 3, 2015 (docket entries #54 & #55). Defendants filed a response, brief in support, and response to the statement of facts on February 5, 2015 (docket entries #56-#58). Additionally, the Court held a pre-jury evidentiary hearing on March 3, 2015.

I. Standard of review

Summary judgment is only appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The Court must view the facts, and inferences to be drawn from those facts, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). A moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party has failed to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. The Eighth Circuit has held that "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).

II. Analysis

According to Plaintiff's complaint, he was being escorted to behavior control when Defendant was assigned to cut off his jumpsuit. Defendant asserts he is entitled to summary judgment because the force he used was a good faith effort to restore and maintain order after Plaintiff ...


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.