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.

Wilson v. Jones

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

January 24, 2019

GREGORY M. WILSON ADC #162142 PLAINTIFF
v.
JONNIE JONES, Administrator, St. Francis County Jail; 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 D. P. Marshall Jr. 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

         Gregory M. Wilson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”). He has filed this pro se action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that while he was in the St. Francis County Jail, Defendants Jail Administrator Jonnie Jones, Jailer Marty Watlington, and Jailer Otis Smith failed to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care for anxiety and chronic pain. (Doc. No. 10.) He is proceeding with this claim against Defendants in their individual capacities only.[1] (Id., Doc. No. 21.)

         Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. Nos. 36-38.) Plaintiff has not filed a Response, and the time to do so has expired. Thus, the matter is now ripe for a decision. After careful review, and for the following reasons, I find Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be DENIED, and I recommend Plaintiff be allowed to proceed to trial on his inadequate medical care claim against Defendants in their individual capacities.

         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 ...


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.