Henry v. Spicer et al

Filing 24

ORDER adopting 23 Recommendation; granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Henry's equal protection claim will be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/10/2015. (ks) (Docket text modified on 8/10/2015 to correct a typographical error in the linkage.) (thd).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
ANTHONY HENRY
ADC #140754
v.

PLAINTIFF

No.1:14-cv-71-DPM-BD

KANE SPICER, Corporal, Grimes Unit

DEFENDANT

ORDER
Unopposed recommendation, NQ 23, adopted with corrections* as
modified. FED. R. Crv. P. 72(b) (1983 Addition to Advisory Committee Notes).
Henry's claim is one of disparate treatment, not disparate impact.
Nonetheless, Henry has not identified affirmative evidence from which a jury
could find discriminatory motive. Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir.
2007).

Motion for summary judgment, NQ 19, granted.

Henry's equal

protection claim will be dismissed with prejudice.

*The Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., citation on page 2 should be to
pages 247-48 of the opinion. In the second paragraph under the "Equal
Protection Claim" heading, the two citations to" (#4, p. 22)" should be to
NQ 20-3 at 5-6. And the Weiler v. Purkett quote on page 3 should read: "The
heart of an equal protection claim is that similarly situated classes of
inmates are treated differently, and that this difference in treatment bears
no rational relation to any legitimate penal interest."

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

a

-2-