Williams et al v. Marvell, City of et al

Filing 158

ORDER ADOPTING 145 Partial Report and Recommendations in their entirety; therefore, defts' 132 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and pltf's claims against Harris, Wallace, and the City of Marvell, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 12/13/12. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HELENA DIVISION
AL M. WILLIAMS et al.
#362773
V.

PLAINTIFFS

NO: 2:11CV00210 SWW/HDY

MARVELL, CITY OF et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition
submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young, and the objections filed.1 After

1

Plaintiff sues Marvell Police Officer Michael Harris and others for denying him
adequate medical care in connection with his arrest and detention on March 27, 2011. Judge
Young recommends granting summary judgment in Harris’s favor because the undisputed facts
demonstrate that he had no role in Plaintiff’s arrest, detention, or alleged denial of medical care.
In his verified complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the day of his arrest, he called the police
department for assistance unlocking his vehicle. Plaintiff further alleged that Harris responded
to his call, but when he arrived at Plaintiff’s mother’s house, he stated that he forgot his “slim
jim” and advised Plaintiff to “hold on” because another officer was on his way with the proper
tool. Plaintiff recounted, “Immediately, thereafter . . . Jeremy Henson badge #311 arrived on the
scene and told the plaintiff, ‘it’s kinda stupid to call the police to get your keys when you got
warrants.’” Compl., ¶ 19.
In disagreement with his verified allegation that Officer Harris merely advised him to
“hold on” and wait for an officer with a tool that could unlock his vehicle, Plaintiff now contends
that Harris told him that he could not leave and that another officer was “en route to arrest the
Plaintiff for a warrant.” Docket entry #149, at 1. Plaintiff submits an affidavit in support of his
objections, stating that Harris placed him in handcuffs. Plaintiff’s recent affidavit testimony
conflicts with his verified complaint and his statement of material facts filed in opposition to
summary judgment, which states: “While . . . Harris . . . was still present waiting for assistance to
unlock the Plaintiff’s vehicle, . . . Henson . . . arrived to take the Plaintiff into custody.” Docket
entry #138, at 2.
The Court finds that Plaintiff cannot create an issue of fact at this juncture by
controverting his verified allegations and statement of material facts. See Conolly v. Clark, 457
F.3d 872, 876 (8th Cir.2006)) (stating that “a properly supported motion for summary judgment
is not defeated by self-serving affidavits.”).

carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the
Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition should be,
and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this court's findings in all respects.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the motion for summary judgment filed by
Defendants Michael Harris, Uless Wallace, and the City of Marvell (docket entry #132), is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Harris, Wallace, and the City of Marvell, are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED this 13th day of December, 2012.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2