Hampton v. Johnson et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 19 ; granting 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; claims against defendants David Johnson and Mark Griever are dismissed; plaintiffs case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 31, 2014. (cnn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION ROBERT HAMPTON V. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 12-CV-1103 DAVID JOHNSON, Sheriff, Ashley County; MARK GRIEVER, Deputy; and JOHN DOE, Certain Jail Administrators to be named later DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed March 11, 2014, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 19. Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) be granted in its entirety. Plaintiff has responded with objections, and the Court has reviewed the objections. ECF No. 20. The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that Plaintiff’s objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Report and Recommendation.1 After reviewing the record de novo, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in toto. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants David Johnson and Mark Griever are DISMISSED, and Plaintiffs case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 31st day of March, 2014. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey United States District Judge 1 In his objections, Plaintiff does not deny that he failed to file a formal grievance or a request for medical treatment while he was detained. Plaintiff’s objections generally consist of him referencing another case where he claims he settled with someone for $15,000 and another case where he claims he was falsely arrested.

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?