Wilson v. Arkansas Department of Correction et al

Filing 95

ORDER ADOPTING 93 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting defendants' 61 Motion for Summary Judgment and 68 Motion for Summary Judgment; further plaintiffs' claims against all defendants are hereby dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on March 31, 2015. (rw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

DAVID WILSON
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 6:13-CV-6036

DON NELSON, CORIZON LLC,
JAMES PRATT, JOHN HAROLD
AND JIM McLEAN

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed February 12, 2015 by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 93). Judge Bryant recommends that the Motions for Summary Judgment filed on behalf
of the ADC Defendants (Don Nelson, John Harold, and Jim McLean) and the Medical Defendants
(Corizon, LLC and James Pratt) be granted. (ECF Nos. 61 & 68). Plaintiff David Wilson has filed
objections (ECF No. 94) to the Report and Recommendation. After reviewing the record de novo,
the Court adopts Judge Bryant’s Report and Recommendation as its own.
During the relevant time period, Plaintiff was incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Corrections Diagnostic Unit in Pine Bluff (“Diagnostic Unit”) and the Ouachita River Unit in
Malvern, Arkansas (“ORU”). Plaintiff claims he was injured when he fell through a prison barracks
ceiling while doing electrical work on his ADC job assignment. Plaintiff argues the ADC
Defendants failed to properly train and supervise him, thereby causing his fall and injuries. He
argues the Medical Defendants repeatedly delayed or denied medical care after he was injured.
Judge Bryant recommends granting the ADC Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

1

because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against them in accordance with the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S. C. § 1997e(a). Judge Bryant recommends granting
the Medical Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Corizon, LLC because Plaintiff failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies against them in accordance with the PLRA. While Judge
Bryant recommends finding that Plaintiff did exhaust his administrative remedies as to Medical
Defendant James Pratt, he recommends granting the Motion for Summary Judgement on the
alternative grounds that Plaintiff failed to place sufficient verifying medical evidence in the record
to show that delays in his medical treatment caused the injuries alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
After conducting a de novo review of the record and considering Plaintiff’s objections1 to the
Report and Recommendation, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts Judge Bryant’s
Report and Recommendation. For the reasons stated herein and above, as well as those contained
in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motions for Summary
Judgment (ECF Nos. 61 & 68) should be and hereby are GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ claims against all
Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 31st day of March, 2015.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge

1

In the objections, Plaintiff makes essentially the same arguments contained in his responses to
Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. These issues were thoroughly addressed in the Report and
Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will not repeat the arguments here.

2