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)

Download PDF
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?