Hanson v. Baxter County Arkansas et al

Filing 266

JUDGMENT in favor of Baxter County Arkansas, John Montgomery, Randall Weaver, Tony Beck, and William Altrazan against Tammy Christine Hanson. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on May 19, 2014. (jas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
TAMMY CHRISTINE HANSON
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 3:10-CV-03022

BAXTER COUNTY ARKANSAS; JOHN MONTGOMERY,
Individually and as Sheriff of Baxter County, Arkansas;
RANDALL WEAVER, Individually and as Lieutenant and
Jail Administrator of Baxter County Detention Center; TONY
BECK; and WILLIAM ALTRAZAN

DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT
On May 13, 2014, this matter came on for trial to a duly selected jury consisting of eleven
members, the undersigned presiding. At the completion of the four-day trial, the case was submitted
to the jury on interrogatories and a unanimous verdict (Doc. 264) was reached as to each
interrogatory as follows:
INTERROGATORY 1: Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence as to each Defendant,
that the Defendant denied adequate medical care to Ms. Hanson as instructed in Final Instruction 5?
John Montgomery

___No___
Yes or No

Randall Weaver

___No___
Yes or No

Tony Beck

___No___
Yes or No

William Altrazan

___No___
Yes or No

INTERROGATORY 2: Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence that Baxter County was
deliberately indifferent to Ms. Hanson’s serious medical needs or subjected Ms. Hanson to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement as instructed in Final Instruction 8?

________No________________
Yes or No
INTERROGATORY 3: Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence as to each Defendant,
that the Defendant failed to adequately supervise or train his subordinates as instructed in Final
Instructions 10 and 11?
John Montgomery

___No___
Yes or No

Randall Weaver

___No___
Yes or No

Baxter County

___No___
Yes or No

INTERROGATORY 4: Do you find, by a preponderance of the evidence that Baxter County
caused a violation of Ms. Hanson’s right to privacy as instructed in Final Instruction 12?
_________No_______________
Yes or No
Based upon the jury’s answer to the above interrogatories, the jury was not required to
complete any remaining interrogatories. The verdict form was signed and dated by the jury
foreperson as to each Defendant on each interrogatory. In accordance with the above verdict, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that Plaintiff takes nothing on her Complaint and the
matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 19th day of May, 2014.

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