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)

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