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.

Scott v. Tally

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

January 25, 2016

EDDIE SCOTT, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
TALLY, et al., Defendants.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.

I. Procedures for Filing Objections:

This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge J. Leon Holmes. You may file written objections to this Recommendation. If you file objections, they must be specific and must include the factual or legal basis for your objection.

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. Discussion:

A. Background

Plaintiff Eddie Scott, Jr., a former Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility ("PCRDF") inmate, filed this has filed this ยง 1983 case pro se. (Docket entry #2, #6) In his amended complaint, Mr. Scott stated deliberate-indifference claims against Defendants Hooker, Hunter, Smith, Shepard, Morgan, and Allison, and retaliation claims against Defendants Smith, Shepard, and Morgan. (#2, #6)

Defendants have now moved for summary judgment. (#35) Mr. Scott has not responded to the motion, and the time for responding has passed. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#35) should be GRANTED, and Mr. Scott's claims should be DISMISSED, without prejudice.

B. Standard

In a summary judgment, the court rules in favor of a party before trial. A moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party on the other side of the lawsuit, shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any fact that is important to the outcome of the case. 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).

C. Facts

Mr. Scott alleges that he was raped by his cell-mate, Clifton Hall, on August 8, 2013. (#6) It is undisputed that Defendant Hooker walked by the cell while Mr. Scott and inmate Hall were engaged in intercourse. When they saw Defendant Hooker, the inmates separated. (#6, #36)

According to Mr. Scott, when Defendant Hooker opened the cell door, he asked Mr. Scott if he was alright. (#6) He alleges that he did not tell Defendant Hooker he had been raped because he was afraid Defendant Hooker would leave him in the cell ...


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.