ROBINSON v. PERKINS, 5:10-cv-324-DPM-JTR. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120709440
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jul. 06, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 06, 2012
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. Perkins has timely objected, Document No. 59, to Magistrate Judge Ray's proposed findings and recommended partial disposition, Document No. 58. Perkins disputes several portions of Judge Ray's summary of the relevant facts. The Court has reviewed de novo. FED. R. ClV. P. 72(b)(3). Perkins's objections underscore the need for a trial. In the end, it will be the jury-not the Court-who resolves the many factual disputes. The Court therefore adopts
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. Perkins has timely objected, Document No. 59, to Magistrate Judge Ray's proposed findings and recommended partial disposition, Document No. 58. Perkins disputes several portions of Judge Ray's summary of the relevant facts. The Court has reviewed de novo. FED. R. ClV. P. 72(b)(3). Perkins's objections underscore the need for a trial. In the end, it will be the jury-not the Court-who resolves the many factual disputes. The Court therefore adopts J..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.
Perkins has timely objected, Document No. 59, to Magistrate Judge Ray's proposed findings and recommended partial disposition, Document No. 58. Perkins disputes several portions of Judge Ray's summary of the relevant facts. The Court has reviewed de novo. FED. R. ClV. P. 72(b)(3).
Perkins's objections underscore the need for a trial. In the end, it will be the jury-not the Court-who resolves the many factual disputes. The Court therefore adopts Judge Ray's uncontested legal conclusions: Robinson's requestfor prospective injunctive relief againstPerkins is denied as moot; and a jury trial is necessary to resolve Robinson's excessive-force claim against Perkins in his individual capacity only. Perkins's motion for summary judgment, Document No. 33, is granted in part and denied in part.
The Court requests that the parties consider consenting to a jury trial before Judge Ray. He is very familiar with the case; so a trial before him would promote judicial economy. And Judge Ray would be able to hold the jury trial long before I will be able to do so. Notwithstanding those factors, if either party prefers that I preside, of course I will. Any consent form must be filed by 30 July 2012. A final scheduling order setting this case for trial will issue from me or Judge Ray thereafter.
So Ordered.
Source: Leagle
