Hill v. Reed

          PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

          JOE J. VOLPE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         INSTRUCTIONS

         The 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.

         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

         Adam Hill (“Plaintiff”) was a prisoner in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”) when he commenced this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 2). He was recently released from prison. (Doc. No. 225.) Plaintiff's remaining claims are that, while he was in the Ester Unit from April to August 2018, Defendants ADC Director Wendy Kelley, ADC Deputy Director Dexter Payne, Deputy Warden Michelle Gray, Lieutenant Ricky Brooks, and Correctional Officer Lolita Shepard retaliated against him in four different ways for filing a lawsuit and numerous prison grievances.^[1] (Doc. No. 34.) In particular, Plaintiff says he was retaliated against when: (1) Defendant Brooks refused to sign a grievance on June 22, 2018; (2) Defendants Brooks and Shepard searched his cell later that day; (3) Defendant Brooks denied him kiosk call on July 8, 2018; and (4) Defendants Kelley, Payne, and Gray transferred him on August 29, 2018. (Id.) Plaintiff brings these retaliation claims against Defendants in both their individual and personal capacities. (Id.) And, he seeks damages as well as injunctive relief. (Id.)

         Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on his retaliation claim against Defendant Gray. (Doc. Nos. 228; 229; 230; 231.) Defendant Gray has filed a Response. (Doc. Nos. 241; 242; 243.) Defendants Gray, Kelley, Payne, Brooks, and Shepard have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all retaliation claims raised against them. (Doc. Nos. 238; 239; 240). Plaintiff has not filed a Response, and the time to do so has expired. After careful consideration and for the following reasons, I conclude Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be DENIED, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be GRANTED, and Plaintiff's retaliation claims against all remaining Defendants should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

         II. SUMMARY ...