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)
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?