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)

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-