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.

Dedmon v. Tate

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division

November 20, 2017

DIVINE DEDMON ADC #157568 PLAINTIFF
v.
KENTARIOUS TATE, et al.[1] DEFENDANTS

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION INSTRUCTIONS

         The following proposed Findings and Recommendation have been sent to United States District Judge James M. Moody, 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 Divine Dedmon filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 12, 2017, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights (Doc. No. 1). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, a brief in support, and a statement of facts claiming that Dedmon had not exhausted claims against them before he filed this lawsuit (Doc. Nos. 12-14). Dedmon did not file a response to the Defendants' motion. Because Dedmon failed to controvert the facts set forth in Defendants' statement of undisputed facts, Doc. No. 14, 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

         1. Dedmon was an inmate incarcerated in the Randall Williams Correctional Facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Doc. No. 1.

         2. The Defendants are employed by the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) and are assigned to the Randall Williams Correctional Facility. Id.

         3. Dedmon did not sign his Complaint, nor did he certify its authenticity or validity. Id.

         4. Dedmon's Complaint was filed on April 12, 2017. Id.

         5. Dedmon appears to allege that Defendant Dodds sexually harassed him during a pat-down search on September 19, 2016. Doc. No. 1 at 4.

         6. Dedmon alleges he reported the incident to non-party staff members, and yet he signed documentation denying the incident at a later date. Id.

         7. On September 25, 2016, Dedmon submitted an Informal Resolution, in which he claimed Officer Dodds “grazed his but (sic) in the wrong way.” Dedmon did not ...


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.