Jewell v. Stoval et al

Filing 42

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 32 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Matthew Jewell. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on January 19, 2012. (cap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
MATTHEW JEWELL
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:10-cv-04176

FORMER SHERIFF LINDA RAMBO; and
MILLER COUNTY, ARKANSAS

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Matthew Jewell filed this case pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds
pro se and in forma pauperis. The case is before me pursuant to the consent of the parties (ECF No.
9).
Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32). Defendants filed a response
(ECF No. 33). Plaintiff then filed a reply brief (ECF No. 34). The motion is before me for decision.
1. Background
Plaintiff is currently an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction, Pine Bluff Unit.
The events that are the subject of this case occurred while Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Miller
County Correctional Facility (MCCF). According to the allegations of the complaint (ECF No. 1)
and the supplemental complaints (ECF Nos. 12 & 19), on October 27, 2008, Plaintiff was physically
assaulted by several fellow inmates who were members of an alleged street gang. (ECF No. 1 at pg.
12).
He alleges MCCF officers identified him as a snitch to other inmates and “broadcasted” that
he was a “baby raper.” (ECF No. 19 at pg. 2). He further alleges “Defendants further instigated the
assault by asking other inmates how much it would cost to have the Plaintiff jumped on.” (ECF No.
19 at pg. 2). As a result of the assault, Plaintiff maintains he sustained bruises on his arms, face, and
head and injuries to his neck, back, and other areas of his body. (ECF No. 1 at pgs. 6-7). He also

-1-

alleges that after the assault he was “anxious and terrified that the inmates would beat” him again.
(ECF No. 1 at pg. 4).
Plaintiff maintains Defendants created a hostile and unsafe housing environment at the
MCCF. (Doc. 1 at pg. 12). He further alleges the Defendants are “directly responsible for the
authorization of the physical attack[].” (Doc. 1 at pg. 7).
2. Discussion
“Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We view
all evidence and inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
Plaintiff has not supported his motion with any affidavits or exhibits. His motion consists
solely of his conclusory allegations. Summary judgment should not be granted “unless there is no
issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ” Advantage
Media, L.L.C. v. City of Eden Prairie, 456 F.3d 793, 796 (8th Cir. 2006). To grant summary
judgment in Plaintiff’s favor would amount to adopting his version of the events without having been
provided with any supporting factual information.
3. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) is
DENIED.
DATED this 19th day of January 2012.

/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-