Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

SCOTT v. BURL, 2:12-cv-229-DPM-JTR. (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20140905992 Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 04, 2014
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. 1. Objections, No. 157, overruled and opposed recommendation, No. 156, adopted. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 2. The ADC Defendants' motion for summary judgment, No. 131, is granted in part and denied in part. Scott may proceed with his excessive-force claim against Washington, in his individual capacity, and with his failure-to-protect claim against Barden, Bogan-hall and Sparkman, in their individual capacities. All claims against Defendants Burl, Ball,
More

ORDER

D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.

1. Objections, No. 157, overruled and opposed recommendation, No. 156, adopted. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3).

2. The ADC Defendants' motion for summary judgment, No. 131, is granted in part and denied in part. Scott may proceed with his excessive-force claim against Washington, in his individual capacity, and with his failure-to-protect claim against Barden, Bogan-hall and Sparkman, in their individual capacities. All claims against Defendants Burl, Ball, Payne and Kelly are dismissed with prejudice. All claims against ADC Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed with prejudice.

3. The Medical Defendants' motion for summary judgment, No. 134, is granted. All claims against Defendants Burnell, Sherman, Campbell, Horton, and Corizon are dismissed with prejudice.

4. Scott's motion for summary judgment, No. 119, is denied without prejudice. There are issues of fact for trial.

5. A Final Scheduling Order with trial date will issue. The Court requests that Magistrate Judge Ray appoint counsel to try the case for Scott. Discovery and dispositive motion practice is concluded. The Court appreciates Judge Ray continuing to handle matters until about a month before trial.

* * *

Motion, No. 131, granted in part and denied in part. Motion, No. 134, granted. Motion, No. 119, denied. An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.

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