Gardner v. Outlaw et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 62 granting 56 Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the case without prejudice as to defts Outlaw, Conner and Evans. Gardner's respondeat-superior claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Court certifies that an ifp appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/12/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
WALLACE A. GARDNER
OUTLAW, Assistant Warden, Maximum
Security Unit, ADC; STRAUGHN, Warden,
Maximum Security Unit, ADC; PAMELA C.
CONNER, Administrative Specialist,
Maximum Security Unit, ADC; and
MARVIN EVANS, JR., Deputy Director, ADC
The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Volpe's Proposed Findings
and Recommendations, Document No. 62, and Gardner's objections. Review
is de novo.
R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The Court agrees with, and adopts, Judge
Volpe's analysis about exhaustion and respondeat superior. While the Court
appreciates Judge Volpe's thoroughness in considering the merits, that
analysis is unnecessary to decide the case.
The Court grants the Defendants' motion for summary judgment,
Document No. 56. Gardner's complaint is dismissed without prejudice as to
Outlaw, Conner, and Evans for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Gardner's respondeat-superior claims against Straughn fail as a matter of law,
and are therefore dismissed with prejudice. The Court certifies that an in
forma pauperis appeal taken from this Order and Judgment dismissing this
action would be frivolous and not in good faith.
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?