Davis v. Hempstead County Detention Facility et al

Filing 33

ORDER denying 32 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Kerry Davis. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on May 18, 2016. (mll)

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

KERRY DAVIS
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:15-cv-04034

HEATH ROSS; JAMES SINGLETON;
JOHNNY GODBOLT and JOAN MCCLAIN

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff Kerry Davis filed this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds
pro se and in forma pauperis. Before me is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 32)
of this Court’s ruling granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing
Plaintiff’s claims. ECF Nos. 30, 31. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including conducting the trial, ordering the
entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment proceedings. ECF No. 14.
On December 23, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Brief in
Support thereof arguing in part Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed for failure to properly
exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). ECF
Nos. 18, 19. A hearing was held on April 5, 2016 in this matter. Plaintiff and Counsel for
Defendants appeared via video conference. ECF. No. 29. The Court ruled Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies prior to bringing his lawsuit in this matter and Defendants
were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ECF Nos. 30-31. As a result, it was not necessary
for the Court to address the merits of Plaintiff’s claim.

1

In Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 32) he generally refers to his
disagreement with the Court’s decision and what he believes to be the unfairness of the court
system. ECF No. 32. The purpose of a Motion for Reconsideration is limited to correcting
“manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon
Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 441 (8th Cir. 1988) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to show any errors of law or fact or to present any newly discovered
evidence in his Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s decision
does not constitute new facts or warrant reconsideration of the Motion. The Court provided
Plaintiff with a letter outlining the proper procedures for filing his appeal with the Eighth Circuit
on April 19, 2016.
Accordingly, Defendants Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 32) is DENIED.
DATED this 18th day of May 2016.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2