Morneau v. Sims et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 101 Report and Recommendations; granting 76 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 81 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 86 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 93 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 18, 2014. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
SANDRA KELLOGG MORNEAU
Civil No. 12-cv-4109
MARK D. SIMS; JACKIE RUNION;
JEFFREY CLAY RABORN; JUSTIN
SMITH; RON STOVALL; DUKE
SCHOFIELD; and ROBERT TIBBIT
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed February 10, 2014, by the
Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. (ECF No. 101). Judge Marschewski recommends that: (1) Defendants’ Motions for
Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 76, 81 & 86) be granted; and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 93) be denied. On February 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to Judge
Marschewski’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 102).
On February 26, 2014,
Defendants Clay Raborn, Jackie Runion, and Justin Smith responded to Plaintiff’s objections.
(ECF No. 103). On March 5, 2014, Defendant Mark D. Sims responded to Plaintiff’s objections.
(ECF No. 104). After reviewing the record de novo, the Court adopts Judge Marschewski’s
Report and Recommendation as its own. 1
A list of Plaintiff’s claims and the relevant facts of this case are summarized in Judge Marschewski’s Report and
Recommendation. (ECF NO. 101).
Instead of objecting to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff resubmits her Motion
for Summary Judgment 2 with minor revisions and offers documentary evidence to the Court.
For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the revisions and documents do not disturb
Judge Marschewski’s findings.
As to the revisions, Plaintiff appears to offer new allegations against Defendant Sims.
However, as Judge Marschewski stated in his Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff cannot
bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Sims because he is a private citizen.
As to the documentary evidence, Plaintiff attached correspondence between her
deceased husband and various governmental officials as well as affidavits by Plaintiff and a
member of the Caddo Fire Department. None of the documents, however, create a question of
fact as to Defendants’ liability for the death of Plaintiff’s husband nor do they show how
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were implicated. The correspondence merely details the border
dispute which is referenced in Plaintiff’s complaint. The affidavits only reveal that LifeNet
ground and air units treated Plaintiff’s deceased husband while the Caddo Fire Department and
Plaintiff were denied contact. Additionally, Plaintiff’s affidavit reveals that her priest was not
denied access but arrived too late to administer last rites. Accordingly, because the revisions and
documents do not create a question of fact as to Defendants’ liability or demonstrate how
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were implicated, Judge Marschewski’s findings should not be
Additionally in her objections, Plaintiff expresses dissatisfaction with her former attorney
on this case. The Court notes Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction. However, an objection to a Report and
Recommendation is not the appropriate method to bring this grievance.
As Judge Marschewski noted in his Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s original Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 93) is a repetition of the facts alleged in the complaint and is not supported by any affidavits or
other evidentiary materials.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts
Judge Marschewski’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 101). Accordingly, Defendants’
Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 76, 81 & 86) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 93) is DENIED. This case is DISMISSED WITH
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of March, 2014.
/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?