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)

Download PDF
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 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

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?