Roberts v. Austin et al

Filing 60

ORDER adopting 53 Recommended Disposition in all respects and granting 46 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Austin and his claim that Defendant Murray/Bland denied him specific medical products in retaliatio n for exercising his First Amendment right are dismissed with prejudice. To the extent that Mr. Roberts claims that Defendant Murray/Bland retaliated against him for using the grievance procedure, or that she retaliated against him by denying him a double cuff script, those claims are dismissed, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 1/28/2014. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
BRUNSON ROBERTS
ADC #127841
V.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 5:12CV00166 SWW/BD

M. AUSTIN and
ESTELLA MURRAY/BLAND

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has received a Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) from
Magistrate Judge Beth Deere. After careful review of the Recommendation, Mr. Roberts’s timely
objections, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the
Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all
respects.
The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (docket entry #46) is GRANTED. Mr.
Roberts’s retaliation claim against Defendant Austin is DISMISSED, without prejudice. His
claim that Defendant Murray/Bland denied him specific medical products in retaliation for
exercising his First Amendment right is DISMISSED, with prejudice.
To the extent that Mr. Roberts claims that Defendant Murray/Bland retaliated against him
for using the grievance procedure, or that she retaliated against him by denying him a “double
cuff” script, those claims are DISMISSED, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of January, 2014.

/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1