Willis v. Thomas

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION CORDARIOUS Q. WILLIS PLAINTIFF ADC #162742

v. No. 4:21-cv-926-DPM CHYNNA THOMAS, Correctional Sergeant, Arkansas Division of Correction and RODERICK JOHNSON, Corporal, Correctional Officer, Arkansas Division of Correction DEFENDANTS

ORDER 1. Willis’s post-appeal motion for relief from the Judgment created some jurisdictional uncertainty. Doc. 98; Compare Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58-60 (1982), with Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i) and 1993 addition to the advisory committee notes; see also BancorpSouth Bank v. Hazelwood Logistics Center, LLC, 706 F.3d 888, 897 (8th Cir. 2013). The Court of Appeals, however, removed any doubt by remanding the case for this Court to decide Willis’s motion. Doc. 99. 2. His motion, Doc. 97, is granted for good cause. Assuming what Willis said happened is true, one of the defendants, Chynna Thomas, intercepted his letter to the Court containing his timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation in late January 2023. Willis attached the envelope containing this letter, which was

stamped by the mail room at the Varner Unit and postmarked on 23 January 2023. This circumstance is solid ground for relief from the Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). This Court’s Order and Judgment, Doc. 86 & 87, are therefore vacated. The Court will consider Willis’s objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. 3. After de novo review, the Court re-adopts Magistrate Judge Kearney’s recommendation, Doc. 82, and overrules Willis’s objections, Doc. 96. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court has considered Willis’s points. But the record presents no disputed question of material fact for a trial. Motion for summary judgment, Doc. 59, granted. Willis’s complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. So Ordered.

SPngnrdelf D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 29 Recenter 2023

-2-