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.

Brandon v. W C "Dub" Brassell Detention Center

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

February 26, 2018

EDGAR A. BRANDON ADC #611280, PLAINTIFF
v.
W.C. "DUB" BRASSELL DETENTION CENTER; et al., DEFENDANTS

          PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INSTRUCTIONS

          JOE J. VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. 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 (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.
3. 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.

         From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

         DISPOSITION

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Edgar A. Brandon (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pro se and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 2.) The only remaining claim in this matter is that Defendants Smith, [1] Brown, [2] Rose[3] and Canada-Johnson, [4] medical staff at the W.C. “Dub” Brassell Adult Detention Center, failed to treat Plaintiff's injuries after he was in an altercation with guards. (Id. at 5.)

         Now before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 26.) After filing this Motion, the remaining excessive force claims were settled (Doc. Nos. 30-31), so the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is dispositive of Plaintiff's cause of action.

         Defendants say they are entitled to qualified immunity and contend they were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's serious medical needs. (Doc. Nos. 26-28.) Plaintiff has not responded and the time for doing so has passed. Therefore, this matter is ripe for a decision.

         After careful review and for the following reasons, I find Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims fail to rise to the level of deliberate indifference and this matter should be dismissed.

         II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

         Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record, “including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials[.]” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A).

         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, ...


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.