Radford v. Brooks et al

Filing 11

ORDER Adopting 7 Partial Report and Recommendations, except that the Court will allow Mr. Radford to proceed with a failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Mitcham. Mr. Radford also states in his objection that he would like to Add Sergeant C harlotte Sanders as a defendant. There is no indication that Radford has exhausted his administrative remedies as to these claims; therefore, it would be futile to add them to his Complaint. The Clerk is instructed to terminate Defendants Wooten, Johnson, Nunn and Spears as party Defendants. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 3/1/2017. (mcz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
TOMMY RADFORD
ADC #89900
V.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00006 JM/BD

V. BROOKS, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has received a Partial Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”)
from Magistrate Judge Beth Deere. After a careful consideration of the
Recommendation, Mr. Radford’s timely objections, and upon 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, except that the Court will allow Mr. Radford to
proceed with a failure-to-protect claim against Defendant Mitcham. In his objections, Mr.
Radford explained in more detail his allegations against Defendant Mitcham and the
Court finds that he has alleged enough facts to proceed with the failure-to-protect claim
against him.
Mr. Radford may proceed on his failure-to-protect claims against Defendants
Mitcham, Earl, Bradley, Burl, Clark, Brooks, Clorid, Gaines, Stout, Montgomery, and
Byrd. His deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Earl and Bradley, his
retaliation claims against Defendant Souther and Defendant Mitchum, his excessive force
claim against Defendant Mitchum, his deliberate indifference claims against Defendants
Brooks and Wooten, his claim that he has not received adequate dental care since his

transfer to the MSU, and his claim against Defendant Spears are DISMISSED, without
prejudice.
Mr. Radford also states in his objections that he would like to add Sergeant
Charlotte Sanders as a defendant and alleges that Sanders is liable for assault, excessive
force and retaliation as a result of her actions on February 17, 2017. There is no indication
that Mr. Radford has exhausted his administrative remedies as to these claims. Therefore,
it would be futile to add them to his Complaint.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate Defendants Wooten, Johnson, Nunn, and
Spears as party Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 1st day of March, 2017.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2