Gardner v. Outlaw et al

Filing 64

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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION WALLACE A. GARDNER ADC#110784 v. PLAINTIFF No. 5:11-cv-96-DPM-JJV 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 DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Volpe's Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Document No. 62, and Gardner's objections. Review is de novo. FED. 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. So Ordered. 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?