Reeves v. Hobbs et al
Filing
53
ORDER adopting 50 Report and Recommendations and granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion for Summary Judgment. See Order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on September 30, 2013. (adw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
MARVIN REEVES
PLAINTIFF
v.
Case No. 11-6047
RAY HOBBS, Director of the
ADC, Central Office; B. HOLLIMAN,
Review Officer, Malvern Unit; OFFICER
JUDGE LANGSTON, Malvern Unit;
JAILER TAYLOR; Malvern Unit; WIGGINS,
Malvern Unit; CAPTAIN PARKS, Malvern
Unit, LIEUTENANT DANIELS, Malvern
Unit, SERGEANT VIA, Malvern Unit;
MAJOR McHAN, Malvern Unit; and
DEPUTY KING, Malvern Unit
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Now on this 30th day of October 2013, there comes on for
consideration
the
report
and
recommendation
filed
herein
on
September 3, 2013, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United
States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
(Doc.
50).
Also
before
the
Court
are
Plaintiff’s
written
objections (Doc. 51) and Defendants’ written objections (Doc.
52).
The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well
and sufficiently advised, finds as follows:
The report and
recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is adopted in
its
entirety.
Judgment
(Doc.
Accordingly,
37)
is
Defendants’
GRANTED
in
part
Motion
and
for
DENIED
Summary
in
part.
Defendants’ motion is GRANTED with respect to all claims against
Page 1 of 2
Ray
Hobbs;
Judge
Langston;
Jailer
Taylor;
Wiggins;
Captain
Parks; Lieutenant Daniels; Sergeant Via; and Major McHan, and
these defendants are dismissed from the lawsuit.
Defendants’
motion is DENIED with respect to Officer B. Holliman on the
retaliation claim and Deputy King on the failure to protect
claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Robert T. Dawson
Honorable Robert T. Dawson
United States District Judge
Page 2 of 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?