Jones v. Kelley et al
ORDER ADOPTING 4 , 30 , 52 and 88 Proposed Findings and Recommendations. Mr. Jones's claims in this matter are dismissed as against all defendants. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/25/2017. (mcz)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Case No. 5:16-cv-00222 KGB-JJV
WENDY KELLEY, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction, et al.
(“Recommendations”) from United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. Nos. 4, 30, 48, 52,
88). 1 Plaintiff David Jones has filed objections to all of the Recommendations, some timely and
some untimely. The Court will consider all of his objections, regardless of when filed (Dkt. Nos.
22, 38, 56, 89).
After careful review of the Recommendations and the objections thereto, as well as a de
novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommendations should be, and hereby
are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects.
The Court writes separately to address Mr. Jones’s objections. In his objection to the first
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4), Mr. Jones states that the amendment to his complaint remedied the
issues discussed in the Recommendation (Dkt No. 22).
However, upon review of these
amendments, this Court finds that there is still insufficient information plead to establish that
defendants Reed, Naylor, Andrews, Bolden, Williams, Eason, Madden, and Evans violated Mr.
Jones’s constitutional rights. Further, Mr. Jones’s amendments do not alter the analysis applicable
The Court notes that Dkt. No. 52 was an amended and substituted Recommendation for
Dkt. No. 48; thus, the Court will only consider Dkt. No. 52, not Dkt. No. 48. The Court declines
to adopt as moot Dkt. No. 48.
to defendants Powell, Watson, and Kelley. The Court adopts the first Recommendation (Dkt. No.
As to the second Recommendation (Dkt. No. 30), Mr. Jones’s objections do not relate to
the reason that Judge Volpe recommended dismissal of defendant Bankston pursuant the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). After careful review of the record regarding this issue, the Court
adopts the second Recommendation (Dkt. No. 30).
In Mr. Jones’s objections to the third Recommendation (Dkt. No. 52), he argues that his
response to the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants was timely (Dkt. No. 56). This
argument is immaterial because, regardless of whether it was timely or untimely, Judge Volpe
considered Mr. Jones’s response in reaching his determination in the Amended and Substituted
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 52). Mr. Jones also argues that he exhausted his administrative
remedies before filing this lawsuit. Mr. Jones reasserts argument that was made to and evaluated
by Judge Volpe when Judge Volpe considered Mr. Jones’s response in opposition to the motion
for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 49). The Court adopts the third Recommendation (Dkt. No. 52).
At issue in the last Recommendation is the motion for summary judgment filed by the
remaining two defendants, Taylor and Mingo (Dkt. No. 88). Mr. Jones’s objections do not relate
to the basis on which defendants Taylor and Mingo move for summary judgment—qualified
immunity (Dkt. No. 79). Mr. Jones cites new case law that was not included in his response
pertaining to exhaustion of remedies, but Judge Volpe is not recommending that Mr. Jones’s
claims against defendants Taylor and Mingo be dismissed on the basis of exhaustion. The Court
adopts the last Recommendation (Dkt. No. 88).
It is therefore ordered that Mr. Jones’s claims in this matter are dismissed as against all
defendants. The Court adopts all the Recommendations submitted by Judge Volpe (Dkt. Nos. 4,
30, 52, and 88).
So ordered this 25th day of August, 2017.
Kristine G. Baker
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?