Flemons v. Bolden

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

AARON ANTHONY FLEMONS ADC # 119749 PLAINTIFF

No. 5:18-cv-73-DPM

GLENDA BOLDEN, Security Officer, EARU, ADC; DARYL MORRIS, Security Officer, EARU, ADC; WENDY KELLEY, Director, ADC; KEITH WADDLE; and DANIEL GOLDEN DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Motion to reconsider, Ne 85, denied. Magistrate Volpe didn’t clearly err or misapply the law in allowing Defendants an opportunity to respond to Flemons’s newly sworn material. 2. On de novo review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Volpe’s recommendation and supplemental recommendation, Ne 75 & Ne 84, and overrules Flemons’s objections, Ne 78-79 & Ne 88. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The conditions Flemons encountered in punitive isolation—other inmates yelling, bright lights, foul smells, and occasional flooding —are unfortunate. But they don’t differ so greatly from conditions in general population that they implicate a liberty interest for due process purposes. Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003); see also Beverati v. Smith, 120 F.3d 500, 503-04

(4th Cir. 1997). And without a showing of deliberate indifference, they don’t support a stand-alone Eighth Amendment claim either. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Ne 62, is granted. Flemons’s remaining federal claims will be dismissed with prejudice. The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over Flemons’s state law claims; they will be dismissed without prejudice. So Ordered. — Pngnstolh fe D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 7 Navembu_ 9019