Cowgill v. Hobbs et al

Filing 46

ORDER approving 39 Partial Report and Recommendations in their entirety with the exception of the recommendations as to Plaintiff's respondeat superior claims brought pursuant to the Arkansas Civil Rights Act; granting in part 24 Defendants& #039; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, with respect to Plaintiff's monetary claims against them in their official capacities; granting in part 24 Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, with respect to the § 1983 alleg ations against Defendants Hobbs, Kelley, Lay, and Griffin; denying 24 Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, with respect to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Warner, Holthoff, and Moncrief; and, denying 24 Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, with respect to their request to sever claims. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 9/24/2012. (dmn) (Modified on 9/24/2012 to correct typographical error.) (dmn).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JEFFERY COWGILL,
ADC #145476
v.

PLAINTIFF
5:12-cv-00112-JMM-JTK

RAY HOBBS, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

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 with the exception of the
recommendations as to Plaintiff’s respondeat superior claims brought pursuant to the
Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Although Defendants failed to argue this point initially, the
Court finds that the respondeat superior claims brought pursuant to the ACRA against
Hobbs, Kelley, Lay and Griffin must be dismissed because these claims are not a basis for
liability under the ACRA. See Jones v. Huckabee, 250 S.W.3d 241 (Ark. 2007).
Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1)

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED

in part, with respect to Plaintiff’s monetary claims against them in their official capacities;
2)

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED

in part, with respect to the § 1983 allegations against Defendants Hobbs, Kelley, Lay, and
Griffin;
3)

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED

in part, with respect to Plaintiff’s retaliation allegations;
1

4)

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 24) is GRANTED

in part, with respect to Plaintiff’s respondeat superior claims against Hobbs, Kelley, Lay and
Griffin brought pursuant to the Arkansas Civil Rights Act;
5)

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED,

with respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Warner, Holthoff, and
Moncrief;
6)

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED,

with respect to their request to sever claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of September, 2012.

______________________________________
JAMES M. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1