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.

Quinones v. Holder

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

March 30, 2015

GUILLERMO QUINONES REG. #XXXXX-XXX, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, U.S. Attorney General, Department of Justice; et al, Defendant.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.

INSTRUCTIONS

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 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 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:

DISPOSITION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Guillermo Quinones, is a federal inmate at the Forrest City Federal Correctional Institution (FCI).[1] He filed this cause of action on July 30, 2013, alleging Defendants: 1) violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for filing grievances against some of them; 2) violated his Eighth Amendments rights to be free from the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment; and 3) conspired to violate his civil rights. (Doc. No. 4.)

Plaintiff's cause of action arises from alleged surgery on his wrong eye and a stitch that was left behind after the surgery. The remaining Defendants are Warden Outlaw, Associate Warden Heuett, Unit Manager Dube-Gilley, Dr. Prince, Dr. Molina, and Warden Haynes. Defendants have moved for summary judgment raising a number of defenses. (Doc. No. 60.) Plaintiff has not responded. After careful review of the Amended Complaint, Motion for Summary Judgment, and Brief in Support, for the following reasons, the Court concludes the Motion should be granted.

II. AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint states:

On March 30, 2009, Plaintiff was taken to the Offices of Defendant G. Edward Bryant Jr. MD an Ophthalmologist and Eye Surgeon who's offices are located at 330 Dillard, Forrest City, Arkansas. Dr. Bryant performed the operation on Plaintiff's left eye instead of the right. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendant Bryant placed suture stitches after the operation in his right eye. Plaintiff was returned back to the Institution with excruciating pain in the right eye and compounded with the discomfort he was suffering by the eye operation. Plaintiff was never taken back to have the sutures removed by Defendant Bryant nor did Defendant Bryant or the other Defendants herein insure[] that Plaintiff was returned back to his offices although he was experiencing a high degree of pain in both eyes.
The suture stitches remained in Plaintiff's left eye and were not discovered until August 30, 2012, over four (4) years later when Plaintiff was examined by Dr. Thomas C. Gehelfinger MD, and Ophthalmologist and Eye surgeon who is not a defendant on the instant case and who's offices are located at 6485 Poplar ...

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.