Medlock v. Miller et al

Filing 111

ORDER ADOPTING 109 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in toto; granting 97 Motion for Summary Judgment. Further Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 7, 2016. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
JIMMY L. MEDLOCK
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 6:12-cv-6127

GARY MILLER; DAVID FLORY;
SHANE LEWIS; BRANDON JONES;
JERRY FREEMAN; PAUL CALCAGNO;
and G. NELSON, in their Individual and
Official Capacities as members of the
Hot Springs Police Department

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed December 21, 2015 by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 109). Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 97) be granted and that all Defendants be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff has filed objections
to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 110). The Court finds the matter ripe for
consideration.
On November 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Eastern District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 2). On November 19, 2012, the case was transferred to the Western District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 3). On August 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 18). In his
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that excessive force was used against him during his arrest
on March 27, 2012 by several police officers employed by the Hot Springs, Arkansas Police
Department. Defendants claim that Plaintiff was resisting arrest and posing a danger to himself.
Therefore, the force used was reasonable. In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Bryant found
that, based upon the evidence before the Court, Defendants’ use of force was reasonable in order to
prevent Plaintiff from injuring himself.

In his first objection to Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff claims that
Judge Bryant misconstrues the facts. He claims that excessive force was used against him before
he was placed in the back of a patrol car rather than after. The timing of the alleged excessive force
in this situation is irrelevant to the ultimate issue of whether the force used against Plaintiff was
unreasonable. Accordingly, the objection is overruled.
Plaintiff objects to Judge Bryant’s involvement in this case. Plaintiff argues that Judge
Bryant has granted numerous requests of Defendants and has shown them favoritism. The rulings
Judge Bryant has issued in this case are based on the facts and the law. The objection on this point
is also overruled.
Plaintiff objects to the fact that Judge Bryant brought up key portions of Defendants’
arguments that are detrimental to their case and did not address them. None of the arguments were
detrimental to Defendants and they were not addressed because it was unnecessary based on the
ultimate ruling in the case.
Plaintiff objects to Judge Bryant’s findings that the force used by the officers to extract
Plaintiff from the police car was not objectively unreasonable. He offers a different recollection of
the events and reasoning for all of the actions. The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ version of events
and agrees with Judge Bryant’s findings. The Plaintiff has failed to show how the force used by
Defendants was objectively unreasonable.
Plaintiff objects to the use of the audiotapes that Judge Bryant found supported the
Defendants’ version of events. He states that he was “in shock and could have said anything.” The
Court finds these arguments unpersuasive. Plaintiff offers no specific statements that he made that
should not be believed or taken into consideration.

2

Plaintiff objects to Judge Bryant’s statement that Plaintiff stated in his deposition that he was
knocking on the plexiglass separating the back and front seats of the police car with his knuckles.
Plaintiff states that he never said anything in the deposition about knocking on the plexiglass with
his knuckles. Rather, he states that is how soft he was banging his head against the plexiglass. He
also states that he was not banging his head hard enough to cause the glass to break. In Plaintiff’s
deposition, he does not state that he was knocking on the plexiglass with his knuckles. He only
states that he was “knocking on the plexiglass.” (ECF No. 98, Ex. 10, Pg. 2). Taking this into
consideration, the Court agrees with Judge Bryant that Plaintiff has failed to show how the force
used by Defendants was objectively unreasonable.
Plaintiff objects to Judge Bryant’s statement that “it is not clear why Plaintiff needed the
hospital records to describe his own injuries at the time of his arrest.” Plaintiff argues that he asked
for the hospital records to show the damage done to him and the effect it will have on him for the
rest of his life. The Court agrees with Judge Bryant that this request for medical records is irrelevant
to show how the force used by Defendants was objectively unreasonable.
Plaintiff objects to Judge Bryant’s statement that “Plaintiff’s version of the events is blatantly
contradicted by the record, while Defendants statement of facts is fully supported.” He argues that
Judge Bryant misconstrued his words, added words to his words, and changed the meanings of his
words to support the Defendants’ statement of facts. The Court has reviewed the record and agrees
with Judge Bryant’s findings.
Plaintiff argues that force cannot be reasonably used to prevent an injury and cause an injury
at the same time. However, the Court’s inquiry is focused on the amount of force used in light of
the facts and circumstances, not the type of injury inflicted. See Chambers v. Pennycook, 641 F.3d

3

898, 906 (8th Cir. 2011). The fact that an injury results from the use of force does not require the
Court to find that the force is unreasonable. See Cook v. City of Bella Villa, 582 F.3d 840 (8th Cir.
2009); Mann v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2007); Wertish v. Krueger, 433 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir.
2006).
Plaintiff finally objects to Judge Bryant’s statement that “there are no genuine issues of
material fact regarding Plaintiff’s excessive force claim.” He states that he has several injuries
resulting from Defendants’ use of excessive force. However, as stated above, sometimes reasonable
force is required in making an arrest. Plaintiff has failed to show how the actions by Defendants
were objectively unreasonable. Plaintiff fails to overcome Judge Bryant’s finding of reasonableness
with any additional facts, evidence, or law.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and finds that they offer neither law nor fact
requiring departure from Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation. In his objections, Plaintiff
repeats his claim that Defendants used excessive force to subdue him in violation of his
constitutional rights. Although he makes several allegations, the Court agrees with Judge Bryant that
Plaintiff has failed to show how the force used by Defendants was objectively unreasonable.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are hereby overruled and the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation in toto.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 97) is hereby
GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of March, 2016.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

4