Bailey v. Gillihand et al

Filing 23

ORDER approving and adopting 12 , 18 , 21 Partial Recommended Dispositions as this Court's findings in all respects; dismissing without prejudice Mr. Bailey's claims against separate defendants Wendy Kelly and David White; dismiss ing with prejudice Mr. Bailey's "HIPPA" claims against separate defendant Ronald Gillihand; dismissing with prejudice Mr. Bailey's claims for money damages against Mr. Gillihand in his official capacity; denying as moot Mr. Gillih and's request to dismiss the due process claims, no due process claims are alleged; denying 19 Mr. Gillihand's motion to dismiss; and permitting Mr. Bailey to proceed on his retaliation claim and his failure-to-protect claim against Mr. Gillihand. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 6/27/2017. (mef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
REGINALD BAILEY,
ADC #093252
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 1:16-cv-00125 KGB/BD

RONALD GILLIHAND, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has received three Partial Recommended Dispositions filed by United States
Magistrate Judge Beth Deere (Dkt. Nos. 12, 18, 21). The parties have not filed objections to any
of these Partial Recommended Dispositions, and the time for filing objections has passed. After
careful review of the Partial Recommended Dispositions, the Court concludes that the Partial
Recommended Dispositions should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted as this Court’s
findings in all respects.
Two of the Partial Recommended Dispositions address claims raised by plaintiff Reginald
Bailey in his original and amended complaints (Dkt. Nos. 12, 18). By adopting these Partial
Recommended Dispositions, this Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Bailey’s claims against
separate defendants White and Kelley; dismisses with prejudice Mr. Bailey’s Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) claims against separate defendant Ronald
Gillihand; dismisses with prejudice Mr. Bailey’s claims for money damages against Mr. Gillihand
in his official capacity; and denies as moot Mr. Gillihand’s request to dismiss Mr. Bailey’s due
process claims, as Mr. Bailey alleges no due process claims in his filings. Instead, Mr. Bailey
alleges a retaliatory discipline claim, asserting he was disciplined as a result of exercising his
constitutional rights.

Mr. Bailey then filed a second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 17). Mr. Gillihand filed a
motion to dismiss this second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 19). By adopting the third Partial
Recommended Disposition, the Court denies Mr. Gillihand’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 19, 21).
Mr. Gillihand’s motion to dismiss Mr. Bailey’s HIPAA claims, due process claims, and claims for
money damages against Mr. Gillihand in his official capacity are denied as moot, as this Court has
already addressed and ruled on these claims by adopting prior Orders (Dkt. Nos. 12, 18). Mr.
Bailey is not permitted to proceed on those claims. Mr. Bailey is permitted to proceed on his
retaliation claim and his failure-to-protect claim against Mr. Gillihand.
So ordered this the 27th day of June, 2017.
_______________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2