McClain v. Behnia et al.

Filing 38

ORDER Adopting 36 Report and Recommendations and granting 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on August 31, 2016. (src)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION PLAINTIFF JAMES LEE McCLAIN v. CASE NO. 5:15-CV-5081 SERGEANT MISTY BEHNIA; COPORAL TIM CAUDLE; DEPUTY TANNER WEEKS; DEPUTY SETH PARTAIN; CORPORALT.MULVANEY;and DEPUTY G. CERVANTES DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff James Lee McClain alleges in his Complaint that when he was an inmate at the Washington County Detention Center, the Defendants violated his constitutional rights by searching his mattress for contraband , disciplining him for possessing a shank, and referring the matter to the District Attorney for criminal prosecution . See Doc. 1. Mr. McClain denies that he possessed any such shank, and alleges that the incident reports filed by various individual Defendant law-enforcement officers were false and inconsistent. See id. On July 25 , 2016, the Honorable Mark E. Ford , United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, submitted a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 36) recommending that this Court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) that was filed by the Defendants in this case on September 18, 2015. The R & R found that the Defendants are all entitled to summary judgment, in their individual and official capacities, because (1) Mr. McClain had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of his prison cell , see Doc. 36, pp . 1011 ; (2) his disciplinary proceeding afforded him the notice and opportunity to be heard 1 that are required by due process , see id. at 8-1 O; (3) law-enforcement officers do not violate the Constitution by informing prosecutors of the results of their good-faith investigations, see id. at 9- 1O; (4) the evidence in the record permits no material dispute that the officers' incident reports accurately described the underlying events of which Mr. McClain complains, see id. at 10; and (5) the evidence in the record permits no material dispute that the Defendants did not act in accordance with any unconstitutional policy or custom, see id. at 11-12. On August 11 , 2016 , Mr. McClain filed Objections (Doc. 37) to the R & R, in which he merely restated , without further elaboration , the allegations contained in his original Complaint. Compare Doc. 37 with Doc. 1. The Court has reviewed the entire record of this case de nova , and finds that Mr. McClain's Objections offer neither law nor fact requiring deviation from the Magistrate Judge's well-reasoned R & R. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Mr. McClain's Objections (Doc. 37) are OVERRULED , the R & R (Doc. 36) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED ;j.ered contemporaneously with this Order. WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment will be e IT IS SO ORDERED on this 31 day of August, 0 6. 2

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?