Pickens v. WC Dub Brassel Detention Center et al

Filing 48

ORDER approving and adopting 40 Partial Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects; granting Defendant Young's 32 Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrativ e Remedies; dismissing, without prejudice, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Young; directing the Clerk to terminate Steve Young as a party to this action; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken i n good faith. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 1/29/2025. (ldb)Notice: The terminated party will no longer receive filing notifications through CM/ECF. To continue receiving filing notifications, email the Clerk of Court and request reinstatement. Please refer to the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures for Civil Filings for information about when a terminated party must be served.

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION GORDON DEAN PICKENS, JR. #114395 v. PLAINTIFF No. 4:24-cv-00407-LPR W.C. DUB BRASSELL DETENTION CENTER, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has reviewed the Partial Recommended Disposition (PRD) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Doc. 40). No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. After a de novo review of the PRD, along with careful consideration of the entire case record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the PRD in its entirety as this Court’s findings and conclusions in all respects.1 Accordingly, Defendant Young’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Doc. 32) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Young are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The Clerk is directed to terminate Steve Young as a party to this action. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of January 2025. _______________________________ LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 There is one exception, but it does not change anything about the ultimate conclusion or, for that matter, about the summary judgment analysis. With respect to the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 5 of the PRD, I read Plaintiff’s complaint to be ambiguous as to whether Plaintiff is asserting filing one grievance or multiple grievances.

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?