Robertson v. Smith et al

Filing 112

ORDER approving and adopting 102 Partial Recommended Disposition as its findings and conclusions in all respects; denying 85 Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion; and inviting Defendant Davis to file a supplemental brief, within 7 days of the date of this Order, if she thinks the documents discussed in the paragraph above do not show full exhaustion. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 7/9/2024. (ldb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION BOBBY LEE ROBERTSON ADC #121746 v. PLAINTIFF No. 4:22-cv-00645-LPR-JTK DONNA DAVIS, Sergeant, Tucker Maximum Security Unit DEFENDANT ORDER The Court has received a Partial Recommended Disposition (PRD) from United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Doc. 102), the Defendant’s Objections (Doc. 104), and the Plaintiff’s Response to the Defendant’s Objections (Doc. 111). After a de novo review of the PRD, along with careful consideration of the Objections and the entire case record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the PRD as its findings and conclusions in all respects.1 Accordingly, Defendant Davis’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Doc. 85) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of July 2024. ________________________________ LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Defendant Davis acknowledges that the rejection of Plaintiff’s Grievance MX-22-00516 was improper, but she asserts that Plaintiff failed to appeal the grievance and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Def.’s Objections (Doc. 104) at 2. However, as Judge Kearney observed in the PRD, Plaintiff did appeal the improper rejection of his grievance, and he attached those appeal documents to his original Complaint. See PRD (Doc. 102) at 6; Compl. (Doc. 2) at 31–32. The rejection of Plaintiff’s appeal is also recorded in Plaintiff’s Grievance History Report, which Defendant Davis attached as Exhibit 3 to her Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 85-3). Defendant Davis’s objections to the PRD thus appear to lack merit. Given the distance between Defendant Davis’s position and what the Court believes the record clearly shows, the Court invites Defendant Davis to file a supplemental brief if she thinks the documents discussed in the paragraph above do not show full exhaustion. If that supplemental brief changes the Court’s mind, the Court will revisit its ruling. Any such supplemental brief must be filed within seven (7) days of the date of this Order.

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?