Solomon v. Campbell

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

CLIFTON ORLANDO SOLOMON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 4:18-cv-04001

OFFICER CAMPBELL, Miller County Detention Center (“MCDC”); WARDEN WALKER, MCDC; SERGEANT GRIFFIE; And OFFICER HENSLEY DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants Campbell, Walker, Griffie and Hensley’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 78). On October 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 77). That same day, Defendants filed the instant motion asking the Court to strike Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion because: 1) Plaintiff did not specifically set forth each claim or defense on which summary judgment is sought; 2) Plaintiff did not assert specific facts or address specific issues that entitle him to summary judgment; 3) Plaintiff did not file a brief in support of his motion; and 4) Plaintiff did not submit a statement of material facts as to which he contends there is no genuine dispute to be tried. (ECF No. 78). Alternatively, Defendants requested an additional fourteen (14) days from the Court’s denial of their motion to respond to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. On October 22, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a Statement of Facts and a Brief in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 80, 81). Documents filed by a pro se party are to be liberally construed and are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 78) is DENIED. Defendants are given until November 5, 2018, to file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of October 2018. /s/ Barry A. Bryant HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE