Dixon v. Stovall et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 83 Report and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part 74 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. T. Hanning, Sgt. Miller, Shivers (Jailer, Miller County Detention Center), S Smith (Jailer, Miller County Detention Center), Sgt. Bayless (Sgt., Miller County Detention Center) and Sgt. Giles (Sgt., Miller County Detention Center) terminated. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on December 12, 2013. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTSERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-04015
SHERIFF RON STOVALL;
CAPTAIN HARTLINE; CAPTAIN
HEINTZLEMAN; SGT. GILES;
SGT. BAYLESS; CPL. LAFAYETTE;
JAILER ADAMS; JAILER S. SMITH;
JAILER SHIVERS; and ALICE MILLER;
And TONY HANNING
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed November 20, 2013 by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 83). Judge Bryant has examined the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No.
74) filed on behalf of Defendants Ron Stovall, Steve Hartline, Golden Adams, Woody Giles,
Guy Bayless, Benzel Shivers, Jack Heintzleman, Kelli Lafayette, Tony Hanning, Alice Miller,
and Sonyea Smith.
Judge Bryant recommends granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff has filed an objection to Judge Bryant’s report. (ECF No. 84).
After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections 1 and
adopts Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation as its own.
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 74) is hereby GRANTED
Plaintiff objects only to the dismissal of Bayless, Smith, and Hanning. His objections simply rehash facts and
arguments already addressed in Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will not
conduct another discussion of these issues in the present Order.
IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, Defendants Bayless, Smith, Shivers, Hanning,
Miller, and Giles are dismissed from this action with prejudice; and Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Stovall shall remain for further resolution. Further, because Defendants’ motion only
moved for dismissal of certain Defendants, Plaintiff’s due process and conditions of confinement
claims against the following Defendants also remain for latter resolution: Defendants Hartline,
Heintzlman, Lafayette, and Adams.
Because Defendants admit that there are “material issues of fact that will need to be
resolved by a fact-finder,” the Court finds that an evidentiary hearing will not be helpful in this
case. A jury trial is necessary, and a scheduling order will be issued at a later date.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 12th day of December, 2013.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States 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?