Harris v. Norwood et al

Filing 71

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 70 ; granting and denying in parts 38 Motion for Summary Judgment and 65 Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on February 6, 2017. (cnn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION IVIE LEE HARRIS, JR V. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 13-CV-01023 SHERIFF DAVID NORWOOD; JAMES BOLTON; DOUGLAS WOOD; ANDREW TOLLESON; ANTHONY GRUMMER; and OFFICER LINDSEY DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed January 12, 2017, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 70). Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 38) and Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 65) be granted in part and denied in part. Judge Bryant recommends that the Motions be granted with respect to Plaintiff’s claims pertaining to alleged First Amendment violations relating to mail, conditions of confinement, and right to privacy. Judge Bryant further recommends that Defendants’ Motions be granted regarding Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Norwood and Bolton in their individual capacities. Finally, Judge Bryant recommends that the Motions be denied in regard to Plaintiff’s individual and official capacity claims for denial of medical care and violation of his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The time to object has now passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in toto. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 38) and Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 65) are hereby GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of February, 2017. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey United States District Judge 2

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?