United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
JOE J.
VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS
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
Shaul
Shirhashirim (“Plaintiff”), an inmate at the
Varner Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction
(“ADC”), filed this action pro se
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 2.) He alleges
excessive force against Defendant Walter Washington, a
Lieutenant at the Varner Unit, among other
claims.[1] (Doc. Nos. 2, 7.)
Defendants
have now filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on
certain of his claims. (Doc. Nos. 19-21.) Plaintiff has not
responded and the time for doing so has passed; this matter
is now ripe for a decision. After careful review, and for the
following reasons, I find the Motion for Summary Judgment
should be GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims should be
dismissed without prejudice.
II.
SUMMARY ...