Hamilton v. Hempstead County

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 14 ; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss Case; case dismissed with prejudice and constitutes a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on July 18, 2016. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
TED HAMILTON
V.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:16-cv-4002

HEMPSTEAD COUNTY

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed April 5, 2016, by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
ECF No. 14. Judge Bryant recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) be
granted. Plaintiff has responded with objections. 1 ECF No. 19. The Court finds the matter ripe
for consideration.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff alleges that on April 30, 2012, Defendant denied
him medical care in accordance with an allegedly unconstitutional policy of releasing inmates to
avoid paying for expensive surgeries. The magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff’s § 1983
claim is time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff agrees with the magistrate
judge that his claim accrued on April 30, 2012. ECF No. 19, p. 5. Plaintiff further agrees that,
an April 30, 2012 accrual date would have “required [him] to file his lawsuit no later than April
30, 2015.” ECF No. 19, p. 4. Plaintiff, however, did not file his lawsuit until January 4, 2016.
Plaintiff argues that he should be allowed to “correct the accrual date of April 30, 2012,”
because he did not discover Hempstead County’s allegedly unconstitutional policy until 2014.
ECF No. 19, p. 7. The Court, however, agrees with the magistrate judge that the correct accrual

1

On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file objections to the Report and
Recommendation. ECF No. 16. On April 22, 2016, before the Court ruled on the Motion for Extension of Time,
Plaintiff filed his objections. ECF No. 19. The Court will consider the objections timely filed. Thus, Plaintiff’s
Motion for Extension of Time to file objections is denied as moot.

date for Plaintiff’s claim is April 30, 2012, which is the date that Plaintiff alleges Defendant
denied him medical care in accordance with an allegedly unconstitutional policy. The Court also
agrees with the magistrate judge that Arkansas law does not provide for the tolling of the threeyear statute of limitations in this instance. Thus, because Plaintiff did not file his complaint until
January 4, 2016, Plaintiff’s claim is time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations.
For the reasons stated above, based on its own de novo review, the Court overrules
Defendant’s objections and adopts the Report and Recommendation in toto. ECF No. 14.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The dismissal constitutes a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(g), and the Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of July, 2016.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

-2-