Davis v. Hobbs et al
ORDER ADOPTING 70 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge; denying Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting Defendant's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. Davis's due process claims are dismissed with prejudice; his 8th Amendment claims are dismissed without prejudice; Davis's claim that Magness and Banks violated his constitutional rights by failing to properly staff the Varner Unit is dismissed without prejudice; his claims against defendants in their official capacities for money damages are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 6/18/2013. (mcz)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
RICHARD ALAN DAVIS
CASE NO. 5:12CV00371 BSM
RAY HOBBS, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction et al.
The recommended disposition received from Magistrate Judge Beth Deere has been
reviewed, along with the filed objections. After careful review of the recommendation and
the timely objections received, as well as a de novo review of the record, it is concluded that
the recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in all respects.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 53] is GRANTED. Mr. Davis’s
due process claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. His eighth amendment claims against
defendants Hobbs, Meinzer, Culclager, Page, and Stephens are DISMISSED, without
prejudice, based on Mr. Davis’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Mr. Davis’s
claim that defendants Magness and Banks violated his constitutional rights by failing to
properly staff the Varner Unit of the ADC is DISMISSED without prejudice. Mr. Davis’s
claims against defendants in their official capacities for money damages are DISMISSED
Mr. Davis’s motion for partial summary judgment [Doc. No. 20] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of June 2013.
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?