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.

Freeman v. Budnick

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

March 4, 2015

JACK FREEMAN ADC #140176, Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER BUDNICK, et al., Defendants.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.

I. Procedure for Filing Objections:

This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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.

Your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation.

If no objections are filed, Judge Holmes can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.

II. Introduction:

Jack Freeman, an Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC") inmate, filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. (Docket entry #2) Mr. Freeman claims that while he was assigned to punitive isolation, Defendants violated his first amendment rights by rejecting his request for certain items of personal property that he says are needed to practice his religion, Odinism. The items Mr. Freeman requested included: a Thor's hammer or amulet, a set of runes with a guide book, a rune cloth, an Odinist text, an altar or table, an altar cloth, a plastic bowl, mead, a mead horn, a rune staff, a hammer, and a wooden statue. (#2 at pp. 4, 7) Mr. Freeman sued Christopher Budnik, Joe Page, Marvini Evans, and John Wheeler (hereinafter "Defendants") in their personal capacities and seeks injunctive relief. (#2 at p. 2, 6)

Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Mr. Freeman's claims. (#20) Mr. Freeman has responded to the motion, arguing that Defendants' summary judgment motion is untimely. (#24)

For the reasons explained below, the Court recommends that Defendants' motion (#20) be granted and that Mr. Freeman's claims be DISMISSED, without prejudice.

III. Discussion:

A. Standard

A party is entitled to summary judgment when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is not a 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). The 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 ...


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.