Lacy v. Reed et al

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS and granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on September 28, 2012. (tg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION TREMAIN L. LACY v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 11-6053 WARDEN DALE REED, Ouachita River Correctional Unit; LARRY MAY, Chief Deputy Director, Central Office; GRANT HARRIS, Assistant Director, Central Office; and DEPUTY WARDEN FRED CAMPBELL, Ouachita River Correctional Unit DEFENDANT ORDER Now on this 28th day of September 2012, there comes on for consideration the report and recommendation filed herein on August 7, 2012, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (Doc. 17). Also before the Court are the parties’ objections (docs. 18-19) to the report and recommendation. 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. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 9) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s following claims are dismissed: (1) all official capacity claims for monetary damages; (2) all claims based on Warden Reed erroneously advising Plaintiff his Smooth Magazine had been sent to DRU; (3) all claims regarding alleged inadequacies in the prison grievance procedure; AO72A (Rev. 8/82) (4) all claims based solely on alleged violations of prison policy; (5) all Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claims; and (6) all Equal Protection claims. This leaves for later resolution Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Robert T. Dawson Honorable Robert T. Dawson United States District Judge AO72A (Rev. 8/82)

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?