Soto v. Hobbs et al
ORDER ADOPTING 83 Partial Report and Recommendations and granting in part 79 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's claims against defts Hobbs, May, Harris, Banks, Golden, Evans, Johnson, Boultinghouse, Tate, Jones, and Meinzer are dismiss ed without prejudice. Defts' motion for summary judgment is denied in part, with respect to plaintiff's allegations against deft Dial. Counsel will be appointed by separate Order, and at that time, he will have the opportunity to move to amend plaintiff's complaint, if appropriate. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 11/7/11. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
RAY HOBBS, et al.
The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney.
After a review of those proposed findings and
recommendations, and the timely objections received thereto, as well as a de novo review of
the record, the Court adopts them in their entirety. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 79) is GRANTED in part,
with respect to Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendants Hobbs, May, Harris, Banks, Golden,
Evans, Johnson, Boultinghouse, Tate, Jones, and Meinzer.
Plaintiff’s claims against those Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 79) is DENIED in part,
with respect to Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Dial.
Sufficient evidence exists to present Plaintiff’s failure to protect claim against
Defendant Dial to a jury, and this case is ready to be set for trial.
Counsel will be appointed for Plaintiff by separate Order, and at that time, be
provided the opportunity to move to amend Plaintiff’s Complaint, if appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED this
day of November , 2011.
JAMES M. MOODY
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?