Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

WILLIAMS v. ALDRIDGE, 6:13-CV-6004. (2015)

Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20150218827 Visitors: 22
Filed: Feb. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 17, 2015
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed January 28, 2015 by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 67). Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 50 & 53) be granted. Plaintiff has filed objectoins to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 68). After reviewing the record de novo, the Court adopts Judge Bryant's Report and Recomme
More

ORDER

SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed January 28, 2015 by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 67). Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 50 & 53) be granted. Plaintiff has filed objectoins to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 68). After reviewing the record de novo, the Court adopts Judge Bryant's Report and Recommendation as its own.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that he was denied adequate medical care while he was incarcerated in the Omega Technical Violators Unit of the Arkansas Community Correction ("ACC"), located in Malvern, Arkansas. Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment be granted because Plaintiff failed to follow ACC's grievance procedure and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff does not address this exhaustion issue in his objections. As an independent ground for granting summary judgment, Judge Bryant found that Plaintiff had failed to show that any prison official had been deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's medical needs. While Plaintiff does object to this finding, his objections are repetitive of his arguments that Judge Bryant thoroughly addressed in his Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will not repeat those arguments here.

The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections and adopts Judge Bryant's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 67). For the reasons stated herein and above, as well as those contained in the Report and Recommendation, Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 50 & 53) should be and hereby are GRANTED. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer