United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
following recommended disposition has been sent to United
States District Judge James M. Moody, 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.
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
1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is
2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a
hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the
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.
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
Eric Reed (“Plaintiff”) was an inmate at the
Faulkner County Detention Center at the time he filed this
action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Doc. No. 2.) United States District Judge James M. Moody,
Jr. dismissed multiple of Plaintiff's claims upon
screening Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Doc. Nos. 11,
18.) His unlawful arrest and detention claim against
Defendants Gurley and Pike (collectively
“Defendants”) was served, along with his claim
against Pike that his vehicle was unlawfully seized.
(Id.) Defendants have now filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 48-50.) Plaintiff opposed
Defendants' Motion and filed a competing Motion for
Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 54.) This matter is now ripe for
a decision. After careful review, and for the following
reasons, I find Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
should be DENIED, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
should be GRANTED, and this case should be DISMISSED.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
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 ...