United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
JAMES A. WRIGHT ADC # 142769, Plaintiff,
STATE OF ARKANSAS, et al. Defendants.
DEERE, Magistrate Judge.
Procedures for Filing Objections:
Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been
sent to Chief Judge Brian S. Miller. 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.
objections are filed, Judge Miller can adopt this
Recommendation without independently reviewing the record. By
not objecting, you may also waive any right to appeal
questions of fact.
James A. Wright, an Arkansas Department of Correction
("ADC") inmate, filed this case pro se
under 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983. (Docket entry #1) Mr. Wright alleges
that on May 3, 2015, while housed at the Grimes Unit of the
ADC, Defendant Cullum used excessive force against
Cullum, the only remaining Defendant, has now filed a motion
for summary judgment. (#23) Mr. Wright has not responded to
the motion, and the time for doing so has passed. After
viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Mr. Wright,
the Court concludes that Defendant Cullum's motion for
summary judgment should be granted
Standard for Granting Summary Judgment
summary judgment the court rules in favor of a party without
the need for a trial. A 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).
Defendant Cullum has moved for summary judgment, so he must
come forward with evidence showing that there is no real
dispute about any fact that is important enough to make a
difference in how the case is decided. If he meets this
burden, Mr. Wright must respond by producing evidence that
contradicts Defendant Cullum's evidence. Torgerson v.
City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011)
(en banc). If he does not come forward with enough evidence
to show that there is a real dispute, the Court must grant
summary judgment in favor of Defendant Cullum, and there will
be no trial. Celotex Corp., 447 U.S. at 322-23, 106
S.Ct. at 2552.
3, 2015, Mr. Wright was housed in an isolation cell in the
Grimes Unit where Defendant Cullum and Corporal Bufford (not
a party to this action) conducted "mat call." In
routine mat call, for an inmate to receive a mat, he must
stand with his back to the door with his hands together
behind his back. After he places his hands through the flap,
an officer places his hands in restraints. After hands are
restrained, a door is opened, the inmate is issued a mat, and
the door is closed again. The inmate then again backs up to
the door and puts his restrained hand through the flap so
that officers can remove the hand restraints. (#23, Ex. 9)
Mr. Wright was issued a mat and the door was closed, he
returned to the door and put his restraints through the flap.
(#25) At that time, Defendant Cullum held Mr. Wright's
right hand and Corporal Bufford held his hand restraints and
inserted the key to remove them. (#23, Ex. 3, 8, 9, 10) Mr.
Wright began trying to pull his hands away from the officers;
Corporal Bufford managed to retrieve the key from the
restraints. (#23, Ex. 8, p.32, #25) Defendant Cullum then
sprayed Mr. Wright with ...