Wheeler v. Tinsman et al

Filing 37

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in its entirety. Further, denying 25 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on September 14, 2012. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
GARY LEE WHEELER, JR.
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:11-CV-02002

DR. TINSMAN, Jail Doctor, Sebastian
County Detention Center; CAPTAIN
CONGER, Sebastian County Detention
Center; SHERIFF FRANK ATKINSON;
and NURSE LAURA AQUIRE

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 35) filed in this case
on August 1, 2012, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, Chief United States Magistrate for the
Western District of Arkansas, in regard to a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants.
Also before the Court are Defendants’ Objections (Doc. 36) to the Report and Recommendations.
Having reviewed the case de novo, the Court finds that Defendants’ Objections to the Report
and Recommendation offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Magistrate’s findings.
Defendants base their objections largely on the argument that Plaintiff was not denied meaningful
access to any of the jail’s services, programs, or activities, because Plaintiff was able to effectively
ambulate using one leg. This objection appears to be premised on a reading of the ADA that would
require either accommodating a person’s disability OR providing them access to services and
activities. Defendants, however, have not cited to any case law that would support that position. In
the case cited to by Defendants, Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465 (8th Cir. 2010), the
Plaintiff was provided some accommodations for his disability, which the Eighth Circuit found to
be reasonable under the circumstances. The Court agrees with the reasoning of the Magistrate in the
-1-

Report and Recommendation that Baribeau is factually distinguishable from the case at hand, and
that there remains a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendants violated Plaintiff’s
rights under the ADA given the circumstances of this case.
Therefore, the Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that the Report and
Recommendations (Doc. 35) is proper and should be and hereby is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

For the reasons stated herein and in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendations, Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 25) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of September, 2012.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-