Hill v. Payne

Opinion

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

ADAM HILL PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:21-cv-06029

DEXTER PAYNE (Director, ADC), ROYRY GRIFFIN (Deputy Director, ADC), DEANGLO EARL (Warden, ADC Ouachita River Unit “ORCU”), MRS. HOSMAN (CO,ORCU), TALIAFERRO (Dentist, ORCU), SOLOMAN GRAVES (Secretary, ADC), MONROE (Nurse, ORCU), CULCLAGER (Assistant Warden, ORCU), COLEMAN (Major, ORCU), WELLPATH MEDICAL CORPORATION, BOB ANDERSON (Oral Surgeon), KINNU (Nurse, ORCU), SETTLES (Sergeant, ORCU), JAILER SCOTT (Sergeant, ORCU), AGULAR (Corporal, ORCU), DEPUTY PITTS (Officer, ORCU), CORPORAL MCDONALD (Dentist, ORCU), GILLETTE (Ex-Corporal, ORCU), VOSS (Lieutenant, ORCU), DEPUTY BALL (Assistant Warden, ORCU), WARNER (Major, ORCU), SEELEY (Lieutenant, ORCU), DALE REED (Chief Deputy Director, ADC), JAMES BASSHAM, and TOMYKA ROGERS DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed on January 30, 2023, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 185. Plaintiff Adam Hill has not filed timely and specific objections.1 28 U.S.C. 0F

1On February 21, 2023, the Clerk of Court filed a document from Plaintiff which is dated February 15, 2023, and is labeled as being a “Motion to Appeal Case to the Court of Appeals.” ECF No. 186. Because the Court had not yet § 636(b)(1). Being well and sufficiently advised, and finding no clear error on the face of the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in toto. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Separate Defendant Gillette is hereby DENIED. The Wellpath, LLC Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 162) and the ADC Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 165) are hereby GRANTED.2 Separate Defendant 1F Pitts’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 147) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 31) is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of February, 2023. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

entered a final, appealable order, the Clerk of the Court construed the document as an objection. In that “objection,” Plaintiff simply states that he received Judge Bryant’s R&R on February 13, 2023, but he then spilled coffee on it. He states that he would like the Court to “resend the appeal information and documents ONLY so [he] can appeal.” ECF No. 186. To the extent that Plaintiff intends this document to be an objection, it is not timely or specific to Judge Bryant’s R&R such that it triggers the Court’s de novo review. See, e.g., Lowery v. Walker, No. 4:18-cv-4108, 2019 WL 5889304, at *1 (W.D. Nov. 12, 2019). To the extent that Plaintiff intends this document to be a notice of appeal, Judge Bryant’s R&R was not a final, appealable order. Cf. Bourgeois v. Vanderbilt, No. 06-cv-4061, 2009 WL 2407824, at *1 (W.D. Ark. July 31, 2009) (“The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over appeals ‘from all final decisions of district courts,’ and generally considers only orders that dispose of all claims as final and appealable under [28 U.S.C.] § 1291.” (citation omitted)). Finally, if Plaintiff needed additional time to prepare his objections to the R&R after spilling coffee on his copy of the R&R, he should have filed a motion requesting an extension of the fourteen-day deadline, and the Court would have considered that motion. However, he did not do so, despite being bound by the applicable substantive and procedural laws. See Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984) (“Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, pro se litigants are not excused from failing to comply with substantive and procedural law.”).

2On August 22, 2022, Defendants Taliaferro, Monroe, Anderson, Kinnu, McDonald, Basham, Rogers, and Wellpath, LLC brought a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 162. That same day, Defendants Ball, Coleman, Culclager, DeAngelo Earl, Graves, Griffin, Hosman, Payne, Pitts, Reed, Settle, and Voss also brought a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 165.