Wilmoth v. Lockhart et al

Filing 146

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; denying 107 Motion to Withdraw Motion; granting 123 Motion for Sanctions and denying 132 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on June 27, 2012. (tg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL SHANE WILMOTH

PLAINTIFF

v.

Civil No. 10-5048

DEPUTY LOCKHART, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS
O R D E R

Before

the

Court

is

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendation (document #135), to which plaintiff Michael Wilmoth
objects (document #143). The Court, being well and sufficiently
advised, finds as follows:
Background
1.

The parties held a settlement conference on December 2,

2012, before Magistrate Judge James R. Marschewski, after which
the parties entered into a settlement agreement. That same day,
the

parties

signed

and

filed

their Joint Motion

to

Dismiss

Separate Benton County Defendants with Prejudice (document #105).
2.

On December 5, 2011, Magistrate Judge Erin L. Setser

filed her Report and Recommendation (document #106), recommending
that Mr. Wilmoth’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice as to the
Benton County Defendants.
3.
Withdraw

On December 8, 2011, Mr. Wilmoth filed a Motion to
Settlement

Agreement

and

Joint

Motion

to

Dismiss

(document #107), arguing that he was not of sound mind when he
entered into the agreement or signed the motion. Specifically, Mr.

Wilmoth asserted that he was under heavy medication at the time of
the settlement conference and could not make a sound decision.
4.

Judge Setser held a telephone conference and later an

evidentiary hearing on Mr. Wilmoth’s motion. Both Mr. Wilmoth and
defendants’ attorney Robert Beard testified at the hearing. Mr.
Wilmoth testified that Mr. Beard and Judge Marschewski had lied to
him about a conversation with the prosecuting attorney and had
tricked him into entering the agreement.
5.
Sanctions

Following the hearing, defendants filed a Motion for
(document

#123)

against

Mr.

Wilmoth

based

on

his

“frivolous and malicious” motion to withdraw.
6.

Thereafter, Mr. Wilmoth filed a Motion for Sanctions

(document #132) against defendants based on the alleged lies to
the Court about the settlement terms.
Motion to Withdraw Settlement Agreement
and Joint Motion to Dismiss
7.

Based

on

the

parties’

statements

at

the

telephone

conference and testimony at the evidentiary hearings, as well as
the transcript of the settlement conference itself, Judge Setser
filed the present Report and Recommendation, recommending that the
Motion to Withdraw be denied.
8.

Mr.

Wilmoth

objects,

arguing

that

he

can

produce

witnesses who would confirm the lies he claims he was told.
9.

The Court finds that this objection is irrelevant to the

issue of whether Mr. Wilmoth was competent to enter into the
-2-

settlement agreement. Mr. Wilmoth has not asserted that these
witnesses could attest to

his state of mind on the day in

question. Therefore, this objection is overruled. Further, the
Court

agrees with

the analysis

and

reasoning stated

in the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on this issue and
adopts the same as if set forth herein. The Motion to Withdraw
should be denied.
Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions
10.

Regarding defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (document

#123), Judge Setser has recommended that the motion be granted.
11.

Mr. Wilmoth objects, arguing that he could prove his

motion is not frivolous if allowed to call certain witnesses.
12.

The Court finds no merit in this objection. As stated

above, the issue raised in Mr. Wilmoth’s Motion to Withdraw was
whether he was competent to enter into the settlement agreement.
Mr. Wilmoth has not proposed any witnesses who could confirm his
soundness

of

mind

on the

date

in question.

Therefore,

this

objection is overruled, and the Court adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation on this issue. Defendants’
Motion for Sanctions should be granted.
Mr. Wilmoth’s Motion for Sanctions
13.

Judge Setser has recommended that Mr. Wilmoth’s Motion

for Sanctions be denied.
14.

Mr. Wilmoth objects, again arguing that he could prove

-3-

his assertions about Judge Marschewski’s and Mr. Beard’s “lies” if
allowed to call certain witnesses.
15.

The Court finds that the transcript of the settlement

proceedings clearly reflects that neither Judge Marschewski nor
Mr. Beard lied to Mr. Wilmoth, and therefore, sanctions would be
inappropriate. This objection is overruled, and the Court adopts
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on this issue.
Mr. Wilmoth’s Motion for Sanctions should be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to Report
and Recommendation (document #143) is hereby overruled and the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (document #135) is
hereby adopted in toto;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Wilmoth’s Motion to Withdraw
Settlement Agreement and Joint Motion to Dismiss (document #107)
is denied. The Court will separately enter its order adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss this matter with
prejudice as to the Benton County defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions
(document #123) is granted, and Mr. Wilmoth’s Motion for Sanctions
(document #132) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-