Vann v. Hobbs et al
ORDER approving and adopting in their entirety 135 Partial Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 120 Motion for Summary Judgment; and, holding in abeyance ruling on the remaining issues raised by both parties in their 117 and 120 Motions for Summary Judgment pending a hearing to more fully develop the facts and issues. The Court will issue a seperate order setting the hearing. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 5/31/2012. (dmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
LAMONT CLAYTON VANN,
RAY HOBBS, Director, Arkansas
Department of Correction; et al.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition
submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and Plaintiff’s objections. After carefully
considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the
Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and
adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 120) is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part:
Claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their official capacities
are DISMISSED with prejudice;
Defendant McCrimmon is DISMISSED without prejudice;
Defendants Harris and Banks are DISMISSED with prejudice;
Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Meinzer for the violation of prison policies
and rules should is DISMISSED with prejudice;
Ruling on the remaining issues raised by both parties in their Motions for Summary
Judgment (Doc. Nos. 117, 120) is held in abeyance pending a hearing to more fully develop the facts
The Court will issue a separate order setting the hearing.
DATED this 31st day of May, 2012.
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?