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.

Humble v. Schubert

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

February 8, 2018

JAMES HUMBLE JR. ADC #117144 PLAINTIFF
v.
A SCHUBERT, et al. DEFENDANTS

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

         INSTRUCTIONS

         The following proposed Findings and Recommendation have been sent to Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. 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 James Humble Jr. filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 12, 2016, alleging that unidentified Doe defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him adequate mental health care (Doc. No. 2). Humble subsequently filed an amended complaint naming specific defendants (Doc. No. 5). Humble sues Defendants in their official capacities and seeks injunctive relief. Doc. No. 5 at 2 & 5.

         Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, a brief in support, and a statement of facts claiming that Humble had not exhausted claims against them before he filed this lawsuit (Doc. Nos. 21-23). In support of their motion for summary judgment, Defendants submitted: Humble's status assignment sheet from April 28, 2016, to October 25, 2016; a copy of the Arkansas Department of Correction's grievance policy; and a declaration of Inmate Grievance Coordinator Terry Grigsby Brown (Doc. Nos. 23-1 - 23-3).

         Humble did not file a response to the Defendants' motion. Because Humble 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 of facts, 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. Humble is an inmate incarcerated in the North Central Unit in Calico Rock, Arkansas. Doc. No. 2 & 5.

         2. The defendants are employed by the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) and are assigned to the North Central Unit. Id.

         3. Humble alleges the defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs. Id.

         4. Humble does not specify in his complaint or amended complaint when the alleged ...


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.