Nelson et al v. Biddle et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 7 Report and Recommendations; denying 2 Motion for Service. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on April 16, 2014. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION

MARY NELSON et al.

V.

PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 4:13-cv-4100

P.D. ANTHONY BIDDLE et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed December 12, 2013, by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 7). Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Service (ECF No. 2) be
denied.

On December 19, 2013, Plaintiffs filed objections to Judge Bryant’s Report and

Recommendation. (ECF No. 8). Subsequently, on March 5, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a supplement
to their objections. (ECF No. 9). After reviewing the record de novo, the Court adopts Judge
Bryant’s Report and Recommendation as its own.
In their objections, Plaintiffs argue that the Report and Recommendation misconstrues
their complaint. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the Report and Recommendation incorrectly
assumes that Rodriquez Nelson brings the complaint. Plaintiffs clarify in their objections that
they, Rodriquez Nelson’s family, bring the suit. Plaintiffs further clarify in their objections that
they have suffered injury because Rodriquez Nelson’s equal protection and due process rights
were violated. However, “[i]n civil rights litigations, one cannot sue over the deprivation of
another’s civil rights.” Jones v. Lilly, No. 3:11CV00256, 2011 WL 3715262, at *3 (E.D. Ark.
Aug. 23, 2011)(citing McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka, & Sante Fe Railway Co., 235 U.S. 151

(1914)). Thus, because Plaintiffs sue over the deprivation of Rodriquez Nelson’s rights, their §
1983 claims fail.
In their supplement to their objections, Plaintiffs offer to the Court a news article from
the examiner.com. Plaintiffs argue that article provides evidence why this case should not be
dismissed. However, the article only discusses the issues surrounding psychiatric bed shortages.
The article does not establish a § 1983 claim.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections and adopts
Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 7). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Service is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of April, 2014.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge