United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.
following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief
United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. 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.
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
the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is
granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate
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.
this submission, the District Judge will determine the
necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your
objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:
Lezell Johnson ("Plaintiff") brought this action
pro se and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983. (Doc. No.
5.) He alleges Defendants Clinton Baker,  Terrie Bannister,
Banks, Raymond Naylor, and Jada Lawrence violated his
constitutional rights by denying him adequate process during
prison disciplinary proceedings. ( Id. at 11-14.)
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated
when he was not allowed to attend a disciplinary hearing in
January 2015. ( Id. at 11.) Now, Defendants
have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's
claims against them. (Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiff
has not offered any substantive response to Defendants'
Motion. On March 29, 2016, he submitted objections' to
the Motion wherein he argued that he lacked the legal
expertise necessary to continue representing himself. (Doc.
No. 35.) I declined to appoint Plaintiff counsel, but did
offer him an extension of time to respond to Defendants'
Motion. (Doc. No. 37.) The deadline has expired and Plaintiff
has not submitted any responsive pleadings as of this date.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986).
When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must
view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923,
927 (8th Cir. 2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on
allegations or denials, but must demonstrate the existence of
specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial.
Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007).
The nonmoving party's allegations must be supported by
sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in
his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or
fantasy. Id. (citations omitted). A dispute is
genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a
reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party; a fact
is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the
case. Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d
672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). Disputes that are not genuine or
that are about facts that are not material will not preclude
summary judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis,
Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th Cir. 2010).
offer three arguments in support of their Motion. First, they
contend Defendants Banks, Naylor, and Lawrence should be
dismissed because they had no personal involvement in the
alleged violation of Plaintiff's due process rights.
Second, they argue Defendant Bannister is entitled to summary
judgment because he had no involvement in determining whether
Plaintiff would be allowed to attend his disciplinary
hearing. Finally, Defendants state Plaintiff voluntarily
waived his appearance at his disciplinary hearing and, as
such, they cannot be held liable for failing ...