United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Northern Division
Wright, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Hubbard, Defendant, represented by Charles W. Lyford,
Arkansas Attorney General's Office.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.
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.
are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit
new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing
for this purpose before either the District Judge or
Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written
objections, include the following:
the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.
the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a
hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the
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:
James Wright, is an inmate in the Arkansas Department of
Correction (ADC) Varner Unit. He filed a pro se
Complaint (Doc. No. 2) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983, alleging
Defendant Hubbard violated his constitutional rights.
Specifically, Plaintiff argues he was not allowed to be
present for his disciplinary hearing in violation of his due
process rights. ( Id. )
filed a Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) asserting
he is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. No. 17) and Defendant
replied (Doc. No. 18). After careful consideration of the
pleadings in this case, for the following reasons, I find
Defendant's Motion for Summary should be GRANTED.
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);
Janis v. Bresheuvel,428 F.3d 795, 798-99 (8th Cir.
2005). Although the evidence is viewed in a light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, Nooner v. Norris,594 F.3d 592, 600 (8th Cir. 2010), the non-moving party has
the burden of going beyond the pleadings and, by affidavit or
otherwise, producing specific facts that show that there is a
genuine issue for trial. Janis, 428 F.3d at 799. A
genuine issue of fact exists if the evidence is such that it