Deaton v. Smith et al

Filing 63

ORDER adopting 54 Recommended Disposition in all respects; granting 44 Motion for Summary Judgment. Deaton's claims against defendant Harris are DISMISSED without prejudice based on his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. In ad dition, Deaton's claim that he was transferred to another ADC Unit in retaliation for filing another civil rights lawsuit is DISMISSED without prejudice based on his failure to exhaust this claim against all defendants, except defendant Smith. His retaliatory transfer claim against defendant Smith is DISMISSED with prejudice. All other claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 8/19/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DEATON
ADC #143472
v.

PLAINTIFF

NO. 5:14CV00230 JLH/BD

JIM SMITH, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has received the Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) filed by
Magistrate Judge Beth Deere, and no objections to the Recommendation have been filed.1 The
Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in all respects.
The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Document #44. Deaton’s
claims against defendant Harris are DISMISSED without prejudice based on his failure to exhaust
his administrative remedies. In addition, Deaton’s claim that he was transferred to another ADC
Unit in retaliation for filing another civil rights lawsuit is DISMISSED without prejudice based on
his failure to exhaust this claim against all defendants, except defendant Smith. His retaliatory
transfer claim against defendant Smith is DISMISSED with prejudice. All other claims are
DISMISSED with prejudice.

1

Judge Deere entered the recommended disposition on June 26, 2015. On July 10, 2015,
Christopher Deaton filed a motion for extension of time to file his objections, stating that he was
being transferred to the Bureau of Prisons. He requested a thirty-day extension of time to file his
objections. The Court granted that motion and extended the time for Deaton to file his objections
up to and including August 12, 2015. No objections have been filed. Once that Order was entered
on July 13, all of the mail from this Court to Deaton has been returned as undeliverable. Local Rule
5.5(c)(2) requires pro se plaintiffs to notify the Clerk promptly of any change of address and warns
that if any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to within thirty days,
the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Deaton was aware of the recommended disposition
but has failed to notify the Court of his new address and has not objected to the recommended
disposition, nor has he requested an additional extension of time.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of August, 2015.

________________________________
J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2