Steward v. Does et al

Filing 27

ORDER adopting in part 20 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion to Dismiss, as set forth. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on October 2, 2015. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
COREY DURAN STEWARD
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:14-CV-02201

DEPUTY DONALD KING, Sebastian County
Detention Center (“SCDC”); SGT. TAULBEY, SCDC;
JOHN DOE JAIL ADMINISTRATORS; and
CAPTAIN DEVANE

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Currently before the Court are the proposed findings and recommendations (Doc. 20) of the
Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. The
Court has conducted a careful review of the findings and recommendations and has reviewed the
record de novo as to any issues raised by Plaintiff in his objections (Doc. 23).
Having conducted such review, the Court finds that the report and recommendation should
be ADOPTED IN PART. While the Court agrees with and adopts the analysis and general findings
contained in the magistrate’s report, the Court declines to adopt the Magistrate’s ultimate
recommendation that Plaintiff’s claim for failure to protect against Defendant King in his individual
capacity should be dismissed at this point in the litigation. The Magistrate rightly recognized that
the claim should be subject to dismissal where Plaintiff characterized King’s actions in releasing a
violent inmate into the general jail population as a “mistake.” Plaintiff is, however, proceeding pro
se, and his filings may be liberally construed. In his objections, Plaintiff acknowledges that his use
of the word “mistake” was “incorrect to discribe [sic] the situation.” (Doc. 23). Plaintiff alleges that
“Deputy King known [sic] the risk of releasing that inmate on segregation out of his cell” and that

-1-

“Deputy King had admitted before the committee his wrongdoing as well did he to me [sic].” Id.
In making this clarification in his objections, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff is making an implicit
request to amend his complaint, which request the Court will grant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a)(2).
The Court otherwise finds that Plaintiff’s objections offer neither law nor fact requiring
departure from the Magistrate’s findings and recommendations, and that the Magistrate’s report does
not otherwise contain any clear error.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Magistrate’s report and recommendations and
herein, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED insofar as all of Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims,
and all individual-capacity claims for failure to protect against the Doe Defendants, Taulbey, and
Devane are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. The motion is further
GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff’s claim for denial of medical care against Defendant Devane is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.
The motion is DENIED in all other respects, leaving for adjudication Plaintiff’s remaining
individual-capacity claims for denial of medical care and Plaintiff’s individual-capacity claim against
Defendant King for failure to protect.
The clerk is directed to file Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 23) together with his original
complaint (Doc. 2) as an “Amended Complaint.” The remaining Defendants will have ten days to
file any response.

-2-

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of October, 2015.

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

-3-