Benton v. Hobbs et al

Filing 34

ORDER adopting in part 31 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition as this Court's findings and disposition; granting 25 motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 3/20/2015. (ks)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION RICO BENTON, ADC #97236 v. PLAINTIFF NO. 5:14CV00287 JLH RAY HOBBS, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young and the objections filed by Rico Benton. After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be adopted in part as this Court’s findings and disposition. The Court does not adopt the portion of the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition concluding that Benton’s claims are precluded by his action before the Arkansas Claims Commission. See Smith v. Johnson, No. 13-2491, 2015 WL 1020808, at *3-4 (8th Cir. March 10, 2015). Assuming that Benton exhausted his claims against Ray Hobbs, William Straughn, Maurice Williams, Kathleen Lowery, and Connie Jenkins, he has presented no evidence that any of these defendants was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm that he faced. At most, he has shown that one or more of them may have been negligent, but negligence is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Document #25. A judgment will be entered separately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2015. J. LEON HOLMES 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?