Johnson v. Whitfield et al
ORDER: Recommendation, 4 , partly adopted and partly declined. Cook and Doe are no longer defendants. Motions, 5 and 6 , are denied. The case will proceed on 11 as the amended complaint. Case returned to Judge Volpe for further proceedings. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/13/2015. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
MELVIN JOHNSON, JR.
LUTHER WHITFIELD, Lieutenant, Mississippi
County Detention Center; OCT A VIOUS BAILEY,
Jailer, Mississippi County Detention Center; DALE
COOK, Sheriff, Mississippi County Detention Center;
and JANE DOE, Nurse "Kristy," Mississippi County
1. On de novo review, the Court partly adopts and partly declines the
recommendation, NQ 4. Johnson's post-recommendation filings make things
2. As recommended, Cook is dismissed as a defendant without
prejudice. Hughes v. Stottlemyre, 454 F.3d 791, 798 (8th Cir. 2006).
3. Johnson has now stated a plausible failure-to-protect claim against
Bailey and Whitfield. The case can proceed against them. The Court grants
Johnson's motion for leave to amend, NQ 11, and directs the Clerk to make NQ
11 the amended complaint. Magistrate Judge Volpe will handle the service
4. Johnson's motion to add defendants, NQ 6, is denied. The Mississippi
County Detention Center is not an entity that can be sued. And Johnson
hasn't stated sufficient facts about any of the proposed defendants to make
5. The Court grants Johnson's request to voluntarily dismiss his claim
without prejudice against Defendant Doe.
6. Johnson's motion for production, NQ 5, is denied without prejudice.
Any needed discovery will be overseen by Judge Volpe after the defendants
have been served and responded.
* * *
Recommendation, NQ 4, partly adopted and partly declined. Cook and
Doe are no longer defendants. Motions, NQ 5 & 6, denied. The case will
proceed on NQ 11 as the amended complaint. Case returned to Judge Volpe
for further proceedings.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
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?