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.

Wallace v. Wright

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

April 29, 2016

JOSHUA LEE WALLACE, Plaintiff,
v.
RODNEY WRIGHT, Defendant.

          PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

          JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.

         The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge J. Leon Holmes. 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 Joshua Wallace filed this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, while incarcerated at the Saline County Detention Facility (Doc. No. 2).[1] His allegations that he was improperly denied access to a law library and denied regular exercise opportunities were dismissed by Order dated August 7, 2015 (Doc. No. 22). His remaining claim is that he was placed in a disciplinary section of the Jail on two separate occasions without a due process hearing. He asks for monetary relief from Defendant Wright, the Sheriff of Saline County.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Brief in Support and Statement of Facts (Doc. Nos. 25-27). By Order dated April 5, 2016, this Court directed Plaintiff to file a Response to the Motion within fifteen days of the date of the Order, and cautioned him that failure to respond would result in "all of the facts set forth in Defendant's summary judgment papers being deemed admitted by Plaintiff, " or "dismissal of this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2)." (Doc. No. 28, p. 2.) As of this date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion or otherwise corresponded with the Court.

         II. Summary Judgment Motion

         Pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997). "The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.'" Webb v. Lawrence County, 144 F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir. 1998), quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (other citations omitted). "Once the moving party has met this burden, the non-moving party cannot simply rest on mere denials or allegations in the pleadings; rather, the non-movant must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. at 1135. Although the facts are viewed in a light most favorable to the ...


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.