WILLIAMS v. BEARDEN et al
JUDGMENT adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations in toto 58 and finding in favor of the Defendants and Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Further Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief against the state of Arkansas is denied. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on March 5, 2012. (sh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Case No. 3:11-CV-03001
JUDITH BEARDEN, County of Marion
District Court Judge; KENFORD CARTER,
County of Marion Deputy Prosecutor; and
COUNTY OF MARION
Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 58) filed in this case
on January 31, 2012, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, Chief United States Magistrate for
the Western District of Arkansas. Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s Objections (Docs. 62-64).
The Court has reviewed this case de novo, and being well and sufficiently advised, finds as
follows: Plaintiff’s objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff’s voluminous submissions contain, for the most part, only gratuitous
personal attacks against the Magistrate and his staff. Once those are eliminated from consideration,
Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate’s findings appear to be: (1) that Defendant, Judge Judith
Bearden, should not be subject to judicial immunity; (2) that Defendant, Prosecutor Kenford Carter,
should not be subject to prosecutorial immunity; and (3) that Defendant, Marion County, should not
be subject to the immunity ordinarily conferred on a local governmental body. Plaintiff fails to
present any relevant issues of fact of law to support his objections; therefore, the Report and
Recommendation is found to be proper and should be and hereby is ADOPTED IN ITS
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations,
Defendant Judith Bearden’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 54) is GRANTED; Defendant’s Kenford
Carter and the County of Marion’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37) is GRANTED; and Plaintiff’s
Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Further, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against the state of Arkansas is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2012.
/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?