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.

Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

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

March 19, 2015

DARRELL EUGENE BANKS REG# XXXXX-XXX, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al., Defendants.

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 Darrell Eugene Banks, a former inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Forrest City ("FCIFC") filed a pro se amended complaint pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") and Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that he was denied adequate medical care and safe living conditions at the FCIFC (docket entry #6). Plaintiff's FTCA claims have been dismissed, and he is proceeding against Defendants T.C. Outlaw, Nader Peikar, Does, Mary Ellen Rivers-Graham, Brenda Hoy, Theron Houston, Darlene Gallardo, and Steven Norris, on his Bivens claims that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and denied adequate medical care at FCIFC.

After a December 1, 2014, pre-jury evidentiary hearing, the Court granted the parties an opportunity to file motions for summary judgment (docket entry #54). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, a statement of facts, and a brief in support, on December 5, 2014 (docket entries #57-#60). Plaintiff filed a response, brief in support, and reply to the statement of facts, on December 26, 2014 (docket entries #61-#63). Defendants filed a reply on January 2, 2015 (docket entry #64), and Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants' reply on January 26, 2015 (docket entry #65).

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 ...


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.