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.

Kimble v. Eoff

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

October 31, 2017

WALTER KIMBLE ADC #122135 PLAINTIFF
v.
RANDALL EOFF, et al. DEFENDANTS

          PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

         INSTRUCTIONS

         The following Proposed Findings and Recommendation have been sent to United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

         DISPOSITION

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff Walter Antoine Kimble, III, an inmate in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”), filed this pro se civil rights complaint against defendants Randall Eoff, Sheriff Mike Smith, Alisha Hardy, and Mike Hardy (the “Defendants”). See Doc. No. 2. Kimble alleges that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by not providing him with “adequate portions of nourishing food, access to medical and dental care when indicated, clean living quarters and a healthy, safe, and secure environment.” Doc. No. 2 at 5. Specifically, Kimble alleged he was not tested for tuberculosis (“TB”) when he was admitted to the Conway County Detention Center (the “Jail”); he was possibly exposed to TB at the Jail; the Jail did not have TB lights; there was mold in the Jail; and the meals did not contain enough calories. Id. at 4-6. Kimble also complained that the Jail did not properly respond to his grievances. Id. at 4. Kimble sues the Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. Id. at 2. He seeks $3.5 million in damages on his official capacity claims, and $100, 000 against each defendant in his or her individual capacity. Id. at 7.

         Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment, a brief in support, and a statement of undisputed material facts filed by Defendants (Doc. Nos. 21-23). Kimble did not file a response to the Defendants' motion. Because Kimble failed to controvert the facts set forth in Defendants' statement of undisputed facts, Doc. No. 23, those facts are deemed admitted. See Local Rule 56.1(c). The Defendants' statement, and the other pleadings and exhibits in the record, establish that the material facts are not in dispute and that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

         II. Standard of Review

         Under 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).

         III. Undisputed Facts

         The following facts are undisputed:

1. Kimble was booked into the Jail on September 23, 2015. See Doc. No. 23-1 at 2; Doc. No. 23-3 at 2.
2. Kimble was released to the custody of the ADC on November 13, 2015. Id.
3. Kimble was a pre-trial detainee during the time of the events referred to in his complaint. See Doc. 2 at 3.
4. Kimble filed grievances concerning inadequate meals, exposure to mold, the Jail not having tuberculosis (“TB”) lights, inmates not being tested for TB at the Jail, and Defendants not responding to grievances, ...

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.