Wilson v. Maples et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 177 granting defts.' 170 Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and certifying that an ifp appeal would be considered frivolous and not in good faith. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 5/27/10. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS BATESVILLE DIVISION ANGELA DENISE WILSON ADC #708565 V. JOHN MAPLES et al. ORDER The court has received the recommended disposition from United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young, and the objections filed by plaintiff Angela Denise Wilson. After carefully reviewing the recommended disposition, the objections, and reviewing the record de novo, it is concluded that the recommended disposition should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in all respects in its entirety. In her objection, Wilson correctly states that her suit does not challenge the constitutionality of the prison grooming policy. Rather, she challenges the method by which the policy was applied to her. The record clearly shows that the grooming policy needed to be clarified for prison employees and that warden John Maples did so by memo dated July 7, 2008. Although these points are important, misinterpretation and misapplication of the policy to Wilson is not a constitutional violation. See Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997). A disciplinary charge based on a misinterpretation of the policy is also not a constitutional violation. See Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). Defendants' motion for summary judgment (docket entry #170) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is certified that an in forma NO: 1:08CV00041 BSM DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF
pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of May, 2010.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?