Smith v. Emerson et al

Filing 51

ORDER approving and adopting in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects 46 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; granting 40 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing plaintiff's claims against defendant with prejudice; and denying all other pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 5/29/2013. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
ROOSEVELT SMITH
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:12-cv-00219-KGB-JTK

RICK EMERSON, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has received Proposed Findings and Recommendations from United States
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney, which were entered of record on March 19, 2013 (Dkt. No.
46). The Court notes that the Clerk docketed on March 20, 2013, plaintiff Roosevelt Smith’s
request for court-appointed counsel and a second request for an extension of time to respond to
defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 47). By prior Order, Mr. Smith was
directed to respond to defendant’s motion for summary judgment within 15 days from the entry
of the Court’s order on February 28, 2013 (Dkt. No. 45).

Mr. Smith filed no document

addressing the merits of defendant’s motion for summary judgment or Judge Kearney’s Proposed
Findings and Recommendations.
On April 11, 2013, the Court directed the Clerk to re-send the Proposed Findings and
Recommendations to Mr. Smith at his current address of record and extended his deadline to
April 25, 2013, to file objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 49).
The Court notified Mr. Smith that, after that date, the Court would rule on the Proposed Findings
and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 45). Mr. Smith did not file an objection to the Proposed
Findings and Recommendations, and the time to do so has passed. Instead, Mr. Smith filed on
May 16, 2013, a notice of a change of address and requested that the Court give him “a day in

court” (Dkt. No. 50).

He did not address the merits of defendant’s motion for summary

judgment or Judge Kearney’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations.
Mr. Smith has been awarded several opportunities to respond to the motion for summary
judgment and then to object to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations. He has failed to
do so. The Court is now prepared to rule on the Proposed Findings and Recommendations.
After carefully considering the documents filed and making a de novo review of the
record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and
hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.
Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt.
No. 40) is granted, and plaintiff’s claims against defendant are dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied as moot.
An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Order.
SO ORDERED this 29th day of May, 2013.

____________________________________
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2