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.

McArthur v. Bolden

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

February 22, 2016

STEVEN LARON MCARTHUR ADC #95870, Plaintiff,
v.
KENNIE L. BOLDEN, et al., Defendants.

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. 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

I. Introduction

Plaintiff McArthur is a state inmate incarcerated at the Varner Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). He filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging Defendants failed to protect him from harm when he was attacked by a fellow inmate on October 30, 2014. (Doc. No. 2). He asks for monetary and injunctive relief.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Brief in support, and Statement of Facts (Doc. Nos. 64-66). Plaintiff filed a Response, Brief in support, Declaration in opposition, and Statement of disputed facts (Doc. Nos. 69-72). Defendants then filed a Reply (Doc. No. 73).

II. Complaint

According to his Complaint, Plaintiff discovered a shank hidden near his work station in the law library where he worked, during the first or second week of October, 2014 (Doc. No. 2, p. 3). Defendant Eason was located in the hall outside of the library area, and when Plaintiff attempted to get her to come into the library so he could show her what he found, she refused and told him to get out of her "f___ing hallway." (Id.) Plaintiff then took the shank to his supervisor, who in turn gave it to Eason, who then gave it to a captain. (Id.) A few days later, inmate Edwards approached Plaintiff, called him a "snitch" for turning in the shank, and threatened him. (Id.) Plaintiff reported the threats in letters he sent to Defendants Bolden and Bradley on a couple of occasions. (Id.) Plaintiff also wrote a statement about the incidents and mailed it to Defendant Bolden, the chief of security. ( Id., pp. 4, 13)

On October 26, 2014, inmate Edwards returned to the library and threatened Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff was unable to get the attention of guards posted outside, and eventually hit Edwards in order to protect himself. (Id.) The two inmates fought, but did not report the incident to any officers. (Id.) Plaintiff was called into Defendant Bradley's office for questioning on October 28, 2014, after Bradley received a confidential statement which reported the fight. (Id.) Plaintiff initially refused to talk about it, but after Bradley threatened to charge him with a major disciplinary, Plaintiff told him about the shank, Edwards' threats, and the fight. ( Id., p. 5) Bradley charged both Plaintiff and Edwards with disciplinary violations, and moved Edwards to 8 barracks. (Id.)

Plaintiff then filed an emergency grievance on October 30, 2014, after receiving word that Edwards threatened to harm him. (Id.) Plaintiff delivered the grievance to Sgt. Gibson in the dining hall on that date, and told Gibson that Edwards should have been moved to barracks 1-6 instead of barrack 8. (Id.) After Plaintiff left the dining hall, Edwards came up behind him in the tunnel area where no security guard was stationed, and stabbed Plaintiff in the back of the head. ( Id., pp. 5-6) Edwards passed four guards and two metal detectors in order to enter ...


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.