Reese v. Huskins

Filing 90

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 83 Report and Recommendations. ORDER granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on March 28, 2011. (tg)

Download PDF
-JRM Reese v. Huskins Doc. 90 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION JEREMY DALE REESE v. Civil No. 09-5150 PLAINTIFF DR. HUSKINS, Benton County Detention Center DEFENDANT O R D E R Now on this 28th day of March, 2011, comes on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (document #83) entered by United States Magistrate Judge Marschewski in this matter, Defendant's Partial Objection to Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Magistrate Judge (document #84), and the objections to the Report and Recommendation of Jeremy Dale Reese (documents #85 & 86). The Court, having carefully reviewed said Report and Recommendation (hereinafter "R & R") as well as the objections thereto, finds as follows: 1. Plaintiff Jeremy Dale Reese filed this civil rights case Reese maintains when he was pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983. that his constitutional rights were violated incarcerated at the Benton County Detention Center. Specifically (1) he alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when: he was denied adequate medical care and needed supplies; (2) he was retaliated against; (3) he was denied access to the law library; and, (4) his mail was being interfered with. Dockets.Justia.com 2. Separate defendants Dr. John Huskins, Lt. Carter, and Captain Holly filed a motion for summary judgment (document #41). And, Reese responded to the motion. 3. The R & R now before the Court makes the following recommendations: (a) that the motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claim; (b) that the motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to plaintiff's claim concerning denial of access to the law library/courts; (c) that the motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to plaintiff's claim for interference with mail; and (d) that the motion for summary judgment be denied with respect to plaintiff's claim that he was denied adequate medical and dental care. 4. Separate defendant Huskins objected in part to the R&R -- stating that although the R&R indicated the plaintiff's claim that he was denied adequate medical and dental care would continue against separate defendants Lt. Carter and Captain Holly, those defendants were dismissed from this case in an order dated March 24, 2010 (document # 45). in part in that regard. 5. The plaintiff has also filed objections with respect to This Court agrees and will deny the R&R the R&R. Although the plaintiff objects to any of his claims being dismissed, the plaintiff's objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Report and Recommendation and the same should and will be overruled. 6. In light of the foregoing, the R&R will be approved and adopted as stated: * is the defendants' motion for summary judgment (document #41) with respect to plaintiff's claims concerning (1) granted retaliation, (2) denial of access to the law library/courts; and (3) interference with the mail; * the defendants' motion for summary judgment (document #41) that he was denied is denied with respect to plaintiff's claim adequate medical care; and * medical although plaintiff's claim that he was denied adequate care will continue against Dr. Huskins, Benton County Detention Center, all claims against separate defendants Lt. Carter and Captain Holly have been previously dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Jimm Larry Hendren HON. JIMM LARRY HENDREN 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?