Gilliam et al v. Kelly et al
Filing
147
ORDER ADOPTING 97 PARTIAL PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; granting in part and denying in part 128 motion to dismiss party and 137 motion for reconsideration; dismissing w ithout prejudice Mr. Gilliam's claims against defendants Wendy Kelly, Warden Burl, Warden T Ball, Warden D Payen, Larry D May, Angela Gamble, Candace Wallace, Barbara Williams, Captain W McNary, Lieutenant C Burnett, Lieutenant Dean, Sergeant W Ivory, Sergeant HL Williams, Sergeant Danul, CO JD Orr, CO Hamilton, COII Spankman, COII E Rogers, CO Merril, Dr Obi, Dr Geraldine Campbell, Nurse S Sherman, Nurse A Bell, Nurse Burnell, T Compton, COII Wilson, Captain Harris, Lieutenant Mitchel, Ser geant JD Mills, Sergeant Dickerson, Property/Mail Supervisor Roberts, CO JT Freyer Sergeant Allen, CO Davis, CO D Harris, Sergeant P Hill, Sergeant J Hughes and CO McCoy. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within 30 days from the date of this Order. The Clerk shall mail Plaintiff the Court-provided civil rights Complaint form. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 07/18/2014. (rhm) (Docket text modified on 7/18/2014 to correct a typographical error.) (thd).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
ALONZO GILLIAM, III,
ADC# 098194
v.
PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:13-cv-00103-KGB-JJV
WENDY L. KELLY,
Deputy Director, ADC; et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court are the proposed findings and recommendations submitted by United
States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 97), plaintiff Alonzo Gilliam III’s objections
thereto (Dkt. No. 106), Mr. Gilliam’s motion to dismiss parties (Dkt. No. 128), Mr. Gilliam’s
supplemental filing to his amended complaint (Dkt. No. 129), and Mr. Gilliam’s motion for
reconsideration of his objections to the proposed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 137).
In the proposed findings and recommendations, Judge Volpe recommends to this Court
that Mr. Gilliam’s claim for monetary damages from the defendants in their official capacities is
barred and therefore should be dismissed. He recommends that Mr. Gilliam’s retaliation claim,
First Amendment mail claim, and claims of verbal harassment and threats fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted and should be dismissed. Judge Volpe also recommends that,
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Mr. Gilliam’s claims against
several defendants be dismissed without prejudice while he recommends that claims against
other defendants be permitted to proceed. The Court determines after careful review that Mr.
Gilliam’s objections to the proposed findings and recommendations amount to conclusory
statements that do not assist Mr. Gilliam in stating a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Mr. Gilliam’s subsequent filings related to these issues, however, indicate a desire to
dismiss most of the defendants for whom dismissal was recommended in the proposed findings
and recommendations, as well as some additional defendants, and to supplement the record
before the Court, which the Court determines he did in his supplemental filing to his amended
complaint.
In Mr. Gilliam’s motion for reconsideration of his objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 137), he states that his motion to dismiss requests that
all defendants be dismissed in accordance with the proposed findings and recommendations with
the exception of defendants Dr. Obi, Dr. Geraldine Campbell, Nurse S. Sherman, COII E.
Rogers, Sergeant J.D. Mills, and COII Spankman. The Court notes that Mr. Gilliam requested to
dismiss his claims against COII Spankman in his motion to dismiss, but the Court will consider
COII Spankman along with the other defendants Mr. Gilliam now requests not be dismissed.
As an initial matter, the Court grants Mr. Gilliam’s motion for reconsideration of his
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations insofar as the Court will consider Mr.
Gilliam’s subsequent filings, including the supplemental filing to his amended complaint, as
these filings relate to the proposed findings and recommendations currently before the Court
(Dkt. No. 137). For reasons that follow, Mr. Gilliam’s motion for reconsideration is denied in all
other respects.
Mr. Gilliam’s motion to dismiss parties is granted insofar as it is in accordance with the
proposed findings and recommendations and insofar as it requests dismissal of additional parties
not discussed in the proposed findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 128). To the extent Mr.
Gilliam requests that the Court not dismiss parties who Judge Volpe recommended be dismissed
as defendants from this action, for reasons that follow, that request is denied.
2
When the Court views Mr. Gilliam’s pleadings related to these issues as a whole, it
appears that his only objections to the proposed findings and recommendations relate to
defendants Dr. Obi, Dr. Campbell, Nurse Sherman, COII Rogers, Sergeant Mills, and COII
Spankman. He requests that his claims against these defendants not be dismissed. However,
even after review of Mr. Gilliams objections, motion to dismiss parties, supplemental filing, and
motion for reconsideration, the Court finds no new facts or information that would alter the
analysis and recommendation in Judge Volpe’s proposed findings and recommendations.
Therefore, the proposed findings and recommendations in this case are adopted in their entirety
as this Court’s findings in all respects, and the Court dismisses as defendants Dr. Obi, Dr.
Campbell, Nurse Sherman, COII Rogers, Sergeant Mills, and COII Spankman (Dkt. No. 97).
It is therefore ordered that:
1.
The proposed findings and recommendations in this case are adopted in their
entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 97). Consistent with this Order, the
Court grants in part and denies in part Mr. Gilliam’s motion to dismiss parties (Dkt. No. 128).
Consistent with this Order, the Court also grants in part and denies in part Mr. Gilliam’s motion
for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 137).
2.
The Court determines that Mr. Gilliam’s claims for monetary damages from the
defendants in their official capacities are barred and dismissed.
3.
The Court determines that Mr. Gilliam’s retaliation claim, First Amendment mail
claim, and claims of verbal harassment and threats fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and, therefore, are dismissed.
4.
The Court dismisses without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted Mr. Gilliam’s claims against defendants Wendy Kelly, Warden Burl,
3
Warden T. Ball, Warden D. Payen, Larry D. May, Angela Gamble, Candace Wallace, Barbara
Williams, Captain W. McNary, Lieutenant C. Burnett, Lieutenant Dean, Sergeant W. Ivory,
Sergeant H.L. Williams, Sergeant Danul, CO J.D. Orr, CO Hamilton, COII Spankman, COII E.
Rogers, CO Merril, Dr. Obi, Dr. Geraldine Campbell, Nurse S. Sherman, Nurse A. Bell, Nurse
Burnell, T. Compton, COII Wilson, Captain Harris, Lieutenant Mitchel, Sergeant J.D. Mills,
Sergeant Dickerson, Property/Mail Supervisor Roberts, and CO J.T. Freyer. These defendants
are dismissed without prejudice from this action.
5.
Based on Mr. Gilliam’s motion to dismiss parties, the Court dismisses without
prejudice Mr. Gilliam’s claims against Sergeant Allen, CO Davis, CO D. Harris, Sergeant P.
Hill, Sergeant J. Hughes, and CO McCoy. These defendants are dismissed without prejudice
from this action.
6.
The remaining claims against defendants Lieutenant M. Allen, Sergeant W.
Brown, CO Cobbs, Sergeant Cole, COII L. Willis, Sergeant Lockhart, CO Kevin T. Minor, CO
Moore, Bill Parson, CO Roshorough, CO Smith, and CO Wiederspoon may proceed.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of July, 2014.
____________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge
4
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?