Baker v. Griffin et al

Filing 68

ORDER adopting 39 and 56 Proposed Findings and Recommendations. The 10 Motion to Dismiss filed by Kelley and Griffin is granted, and defendants Kelley and Griffin are dismissed with prejudice from this matter. The 41 Motion to Dismis s filed by defendants Moore, Byers, and Whitaker is granted in part, with respect to Mr. Baker's claims against defendants Moore and Byers. Defendants Moore and Byers are dismissed from this action. The motion to dismiss is granted with respect to Mr. Baker's monetary claims against defendant Whitaker in her official capacity, and denied with respect to Mr. Baker's allegations against defendant Whitaker in her individual capacity. Those claims are permitted to proceed at this stage of the litigation. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/24/2017. (mcz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
LEE BAKER
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 5:17-cv-00012-KGB-JTK

ROY GRIFFIN, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has received and reviewed two Proposed Findings and Recommendations
(“Recommendations”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. Nos.
39, 56). Plaintiff Lee Baker has filed objections to the second Recommendation, but he has not
filed objections to the first Recommendation (Dkt. No. 62). After careful consideration of the
Recommendations, Mr. Baker’s timely objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court
concludes that the Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved in their entirety and
adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects.
In his objection to the second Recommendation, Mr. Baker states that he “has evidence
that defendants Byers, Griffin, Kelly, Moore, and Whitaker were notified” of his problems and
deliberately ignored them (Dkt. No. 62, at 1). He admits he did not attach those documents to his
complaint because the complaint form said not to do so. The Court evaluates a motion to dismiss
based on the parties’ filings, not other documents. The evidence that Mr. Baker claims to have
would not change this Court’s analysis.
As stated in the Recommendation, to survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible

“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
For the reasons explained in the first and second Recommendations, Mr. Baker did not provide
enough factual information in his complaint to meet the legal standard to survive a motion to
dismiss as to certain claims against certain defendants in this matter.
It is therefore ordered that:
1.

The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Kelley and Griffin is granted, and

defendants Kelley and Griffin are dismissed with prejudice from this matter (Dkt. No 10).
2.

The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Moore, Byers, and Whitaker is granted

in part, with respect to Mr. Baker’s claims against defendants Moore and Byers (Dkt. No. 41).
Defendants Moore and Byers are dismissed from this action.
3.

The motion to dismiss is granted in part, with respect to Mr. Baker’s monetary

claims against defendant Whitaker in her official capacity (Dkt. No. 41). Those claims are
dismissed with prejudice.
4.

The motion to dismiss is denied with respect to Mr. Baker’s allegations against

defendant Whitaker in her individual capacity (Dkt. No. 41). Those claims are permitted to
proceed at this stage of the litigation.
So ordered this 24th day of August, 2017.

____________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2