Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05162/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05162-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION 

SCOTT JEFFERSON FOX RICHEY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5162

SHERIFF KEITH FERGUSON; and

DR. NEIL MULLINS DEFENDANTS

ORDER

NOW on this 6th day of March 2007, the above referenced

matter comes on for consideration and the Court, being well and

sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows: 

1. This matter was originally initiated by the plaintiff on

September 19, 2005. 

On March 13, 2006, the defendants, Sheriff Keith Ferguson and

Dr. Neil Mullins, filed their Motion for Summary Judgment

(document #20). 

To assist plaintiff in responding to the summary judgment

motion, a questionnaire was propounded to the plaintiff (document

#23). His response to the questionnaire was filed as his response

to the summary judgment motion (document #24). 

2. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

(document #26 -- the “R & R”) addressed the summary judgment

motion and was filed on February 8, 2007. It provided that

“parties have ten days from receipt of the report and

recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).” 

Case 5:05-cv-05162-JLH Document 31 Filed 03/06/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

3. On February 27, 2007, plaintiff filed his Written

Objections to the R & R as permitted by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)

(document #27). Plaintiff also then filed a Motion for Extension

of Time (document #28). 

In the motion for extension of time, plaintiff seeks an

additional thirty (30) days within which to file objections to the

R & R “containing medical documents that are not currently

available.” The motion notes that plaintiff has never before

requested an extension of time and also notes that the needed

documents “are at other facilities and agencies which he will try

to obtain through ‘The Freedom of Information Act’ and/or

hopefully other available means such as ‘Appointment of Counsel’

etc.” 

4. To provide context for the Court’s analysis, it is

useful to note that plaintiff contends his constitutional rights

were violated while he was incarcerated at the Benton County

Detention Center because, he says:

* that he was denied adequate medical care;

* that his right to medical privacy was violated; and

* that the grievance procedure at the jail was inadequate.

In the R & R, Judge Marschewski analyzed the defendants’

motion for summary judgment with respect to all of these claims

and recommended:

* that the motion be denied with respect to plaintiff’s

Case 5:05-cv-05162-JLH Document 31 Filed 03/06/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

claim that he was denied adequate medical care;

* that the motion be granted with respect to plaintiff’s

claim that his right to medical privacy was violated; and,

* that the motion be granted with respect to his claim

that the grievance procedure was inadequate. 

As already noted, plaintiff filed written objections to the

R & R (document #27) and has also moved for an extension of time

to present “objections containing medical documents that are not

currently available. (medications, x-rays, etc.)” (document #28).

In the written objections presented by plaintiff, he objects

to the recommendation that the summary judgment motion be granted

with respect to any claims -- but agrees that it should be denied

with respect to his claim that he was denied adequate medical

care. That being plaintiff’s position -- and since the Court

will, in fact, adopt Judge Marschewski’s recommendation and deny

the motion as to the medical care issue -- the Court perceives no

reason to delay a final ruling on this motion in order to allow

plaintiff to present further medical evidence. Accordingly,

plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (document #28) will be

denied. 

5. As to plaintiff’s other objections (document #27), the

Court finds that they offer neither law nor fact requiring

departure from the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the same

should be adopted in toto. 

Case 5:05-cv-05162-JLH Document 31 Filed 03/06/07 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time

(document #28) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of

the Magistrate Judge (document #26) is adopted in toto, and, in

accordance therewith, the Court finds that defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment (document #20) should be, and it hereby is,

granted in part and denied in part as follows:

* the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with respect

to plaintiff’s claim that his privacy, or confidentiality, with

respect to his medical information was violated; and that claim is

hereby dismissed, with prejudice;

* the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with respect

to plaintiff’s claim that the grievance procedure was inadequate;

and that claim is hereby dismissed, with prejudice; 

* the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied with respect

to plaintiff’s claim that he was denied adequate medical care. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05162-JLH Document 31 Filed 03/06/07 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>