United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
COREY F. LEIJA ADC #656449, Plaintiff,
LARRY MILLS, et al., Defendants.
BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.
I. Procedure for Filing Objections:
This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Any party may file written objections to this Recommendation within fourteen (14) days.
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.
If no objections are filed, Judge Marshall 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.
Corey Leija, an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate formerly housed at the Poinsett County Detention Center, filed this case pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Defendants Larry Mills and Becky Hitt violated his rights by failing to provide him with medical care. (Docket entry #4) Defendants Mills and Hitt have now moved for summary judgment on Mr. Leija's claims. (#16)
Mr. Leija responded to the motion (#20), but later asked for additional time to supplement his response. (#22) Specifically, he asked the Court to allow him to respond more fully after his release from incarceration. The Court granted Mr. Leija an additional thirty days to respond, but declined to grant him two or three months to respond. (#24)
Mr. Leija later asked that he be allowed to respond to the Defendants' motion until his release from jail on May 8, 2015. (#27) The Court granted Mr. Leija additional time, but only until April 6, 2015. (#28)
Mr. Leija again asked to delay filing a response until after his release so that he could hire a lawyer. (#29) The Defendants' motion has now been pending for nearly four months. Mr. Leija has had ample time to respond. From the response he has filed, it is clear that the material facts are not in dispute. As explained below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#16) should be GRANTED.
Summary judgment is granted to a party 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 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 246, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986). A 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 ...