Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02128/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02128-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

DANNY OVERTON CRUSE PLAINTIFF

V. Case No. 05-2128

SHERIFF REED HAYNES, MARGARET

LEWIS, JOSH ROSS, MATT HAMILTON,

JAILER JUSTIN PHILLIPS, CHRIS McCOY,

and MEDICAL DEPARTMENT DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Danny Cruse brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that

his constitutional rights were violated while detained in the Franklin County Detention Center.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Justin Phillips as a defendant in this action. (Doc.

26). The plaintiff has filed no response to this motion to dismiss. 

In their motion, defendants state that Justin Phillips is not currently and was at no time

during the time period relevant to plaintiff’s case in the employ of Franklin County. Instead,

defendants contend that Justin Phillips is a law enforcement officer with the City of Ozark. As

such, they request that plaintiff’s claims against Justin Phillips be dismissed for failure to state

facts upon which a claim of relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Because plaintiff’s

cause of action arises from a claim against the Sheriff of Franklin County and others in his

employ for failure to provide medical care, we agree. 

Therefore, I recommend that defendants' motion (Doc. 26) to dismiss Justin Phillips as

a defendant be GRANTED and this party be DISMISSED. 

Notably, there are several other defendants named in this action, so the plaintiff will be

able to pursue his claims against these defendants. 

Case 2:05-cv-02128-RTD Document 33 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

The parties have ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

written objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties

are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by

the district court. 

DATED this 23rd day of October 2006.

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02128-RTD Document 33 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>