Brown v. Hickman et al

Filing 61

ORDER ADOPTING 54 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in toto. Further granting 23 MOTION for Summary Judgment and dismissing this case. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on September 19, 2011. (lw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION DANIEL RAY BROWN PLAINTIFF v. Civil No. 10-3052 SHERIFF DANNY HICKMAN; JASON DAY, Jail Administrator, Boone County Detention Center; and BOONE COUNTY, ARKANSAS DEFENDANTS ORDER NOW on 19th this day of September 2011, comes on for consideration the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of the Magistrate Judge (document #54), filed on August 25, 2011, and petitioner’s objections thereto (document #60), filed on September 13, 2011. The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows with respect thereto: 1. By Magistrate Order Judge of September addressed and 2, 2011 ruled on (Document two #59), motions filed the by petitioner (Documents 55 and 56). (a) In ruling on the Document #55 motion [whereby petitioner was seeking additional time to submit a supplemental response to defendants' the pending alleged summary failure to judgment comply with motion the because Court's of Order (document #50)], the Magistrate Judge pointed out that petitioner had attached responses. to his motion defendants' supplemental discovery Thus, the Magistrate Judge denied the Document #55 motion because petitioner already had the responses he sought. The Magistrate Judge went on to state in his Order of September 2, 2011: If Plaintiff believes information contained in the supplemental discovery responses is relevant to the summary judgment motion, he may submit the information with his objections to the report and recommendation (Doc. 54) (b) claimed In ruling on the Document #56 motion (whereby petitioner that defendants' supplement discovery responses were inadequate), the Magistrate Judge addressed petitioner's specific complaint with respect to Request for Production #9 -- and found the challenged response to be sufficient. Accordingly, the Document #56 motion was denied. 2. In his objections to the R&R, petitioner states (a) defendants failed to answer his discovery requests on that time as ordered by the Court, thus, violated this Court's order; and (b) that, because defendants failed to so comply, petitioner did not have an opportunity to compile "all discovery evidence" and provide them to the Court. 3. It appears to the Court that petitioner's objections relate to the same issues decided against him in the Magistrate Judge's Order of September 2, 2011 -- and that, despite being advised he could submit the information he had in his objections to the R&R if he believed it relevant, he did not do so. The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's said Order of September 2, 2011, and finds no error therein. 4. neither It follows, therefore, that plaintiff’s objections offer law nor fact requiring departure -2- from the Report and Recommendation and the same should and will be overruled. 5. The Report and Recommendation is sound in all respects and should be adopted in toto. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED * that plaintiff's objections to the Report And Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge should be, and they hereby are, overruled; * that the said Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge should be, and it hereby is, adopted in toto. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (document #23) is granted and this case is dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren JIMM LARRY HENDREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-

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?