Maxwell/G-Doffee v. Barnes

E.D. Arkansas

Maxwell/G-Doffee v. Barnes

DecidedMarch 30, 2021

Docket5:17-cv-00259

StatusUnknown

This text of Maxwell/G-Doffee v. Barnes (Maxwell/G-Doffee v. Barnes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maxwell/G-Doffee v. Barnes, (E.D. Ark. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

DON MERCELEANY R. MAXWELL/G-DOFFEE PLAINTIFF ADC #108778

v. Case No. 5:17-cv-00259-KGB-BD

VINESHIA BARNES, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere recommending the Court grant defendants Patrice Hunter, Vineshia Barnes, Felicia Bentley, Danny Burl, Jared Byers, Antwon Emsweller, Edward Engstrom, Barbara Gardner, Deanna Jackson, Kirsti Kindall, Thomasania McNutt, and C. Stout’s (jointly “defendants”) motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 128, 131, 143). Plaintiff Don Merceleany R Maxwell/G-Doffee filed an objection to the Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 144). After careful consideration of the Recommended Disposition, Mr. Maxwell/G-Doffee’s objection, and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 143). Mr. Maxwell/G-Doffee does not raise any new arguments or evidence in his objection. The Court agrees with Judge Deere’s analysis that, under the summary judgment standard, Mr. Maxwell/G-Doffee has failed to present sufficient record evidence creating a genuine dispute as to any material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Schmidt, 967 F.2d 270, 271-72 (8th Cir. 1992); Miner v. Local 373, 513 F.3d 854, 860 (8th Cir. 2008) (determining that mere denials or allegations are insufficient to defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.). Accordingly, the Court grants defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 128, 131) and dismisses with prejudice Mr. Maxwell/G-Doffee’s claims against all defendants. His requests for relief are denied. It is so ordered this 30th day of March, 2021. Hw sh A . Palir— Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

DON MERCELEANY R. MAXWELL/G-DOFFEE PLAINTIFF ADC #108778

v. Case No. 5:17-cv-00259-KGB-BD

VINESHIA BARNES, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere recommending the Court grant defendants Patrice Hunter, Vineshia Barnes, Felicia Bentley, Danny Burl, Jared Byers, Antwon Emsweller, Edward Engstrom, Barbara Gardner, Deanna Jackson, Kirsti Kindall, Thomasania McNutt, and C. Stout’s (jointly “defendants”) motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 128, 131, 143). Plaintiff Don Merceleany R Maxwell/G-Doffee filed an objection to the Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 144). After careful consideration of the Recommended Disposition, Mr. Maxwell/G-Doffee’s objection, and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 143). Mr. Maxwell/G-Doffee does not raise any new arguments or evidence in his objection. The Court agrees with Judge Deere’s analysis that, under the summary judgment standard, Mr. Maxwell/G-Doffee has failed to present sufficient record evidence creating a genuine dispute as to any material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); See Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Schmidt, 967 F.2d 270, 271-72 (8th Cir. 1992); Miner v. Local 373, 513 F.3d 854, 860 (8th Cir. 2008) (determining that mere denials or allegations are insufficient to defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.). Accordingly, the Court grants defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 128, 131) and dismisses with prejudice Mr. Maxwell/G-Doffee’s claims against all defendants. His requests for relief are denied. It is so ordered this 30th day of March, 2021. Hw sh A . Palir— Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Maxwell/G-Doffee v. Barnes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwellg-doffee-v-barnes-ared-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack