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.

Allen v. Holladay

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

January 27, 2016

DERRICK L. ALLEN, Plaintiff,
v.
DOC HOLLADAY, et al., Defendants.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

BETH DEERE, Magistrate Judge.

I. Procedures for Filing Objections:

This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge Susan Webber Wright. 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 Wright can adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal questions of fact.

II. Background:

Derrick L. Allen, formerly an inmate at the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility ("Detention Facility"), filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983. (Docket entry #2) Because his original complaint was deficient, Mr. Allen was given an opportunity to amend his complaint. (#4) Mr. Allen then filed an amended complaint (#5), but the amended complaint, as written, also failed to state a constitutional claim. Mr. Allen was provided a second opportunity to amend his complaint. Mr. Allen then filed his second amended complaint. (#10) Based on the allegations in the second amended complaint, Mr. Allen stated deliberate-indifference claims against Defendants Speer and Brawley.

Mr. Allen's failure-to-protect claims were dismissed, without prejudice. (#15) Thus, the Court dismissed Defendants Holladay, Musaddiq, Knudson, and Sylvester from the lawsuit. (#15) Also, claims against Defendants Randolph, Knudsen, Batty, Hodge, Ellis, Berumen, Jenkins, Lee, Brown, and Johnson were dismissed. (#15)

Remaining Defendants Speer and Brawley have now moved for summary judgment. (#40) Mr. Allen has responded to the motion, and the Defendants have replied. (#44, #45)

Based on the evidence presented, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#40) should be GRANTED, and Mr. Allen's claims against Defendants Speer and Brawley should be DISMISSED, with prejudice.

III. Discussion:

A. 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 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). If there are genuinely disputed facts that are important enough to matter, the Court views those facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, provided the record would not render the non-moving party's version unacceptable to reasonable jurors. O'Neil v. City of Iowa City, Iowa, 496 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir. 2007).

B. Factual Background

On March 19, 2014, Mr. Allen was booked into the Detention Facility on state criminal charges. (#42-1 at pp.21-22) On July 17, 2014, while incarcerated, Mr. Allen was involved in a physical altercation with inmate Kenneth Lynch. (#42-2 at p.4) During the altercation, Mr. Lynch struck Mr. Allen in the face with a closed fist, knocking out two of Mr. Allen's teeth. ( Id. ) Detention Facility nurses Stowe, Holmes, and Smith responded to the incident, evaluated Mr. Allen, and determined that ...


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.