Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00005/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00005-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

PINE BLUFF DIVISION 

ROBERT E. WOODWARD, PLAINTIFF 

#0452670 

v. 5:19-cv-00005-KGB 

JAMES GIBSON, Warden, Varner Unit; and 

WENDY KELLEY, Director, ADC DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

INSTRUCTIONS 

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge 

Kristine G. Baker. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. 

Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If 

the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports 

your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the 

United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of the findings 

and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely 

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

 If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or 

additional evidence, and to have a hearing for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at 

the same time that you file your written objections, include the following: 

 1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate. 

 2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not 

offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 5:19-cv-00005-KGB Document 18 Filed 04/10/19 Page 1 of 4
2 

 3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form 

of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial 

evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing. 

 From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional 

evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to: 

Clerk, United States District Court 

Eastern District of Arkansas 

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite A149 

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 

DISPOSITION 

I. DISCUSSION 

In January 2019, Robert E. Woodward (“Plaintiff) filed a pro se Complaint, pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated his constitutional rights by allowing him to be bitten 

by mosquitos at the Varner Super Max Unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. (Doc. 

No. 2.) I explained to Plaintiff why he had not pled a plausible claim for relief and gave him the 

opportunity to cure the deficiencies. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint did not do 

so. (Doc. No. 4.) Thus, on January 24, 2019, I issued a Recommended Disposition suggesting 

the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a plausible claim for relief and that a 

strike be imposed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. No. 5.) 

On March 14, 2019, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss with prejudice pursuant to 

a settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 8.) Specifically, Plaintiff agreed to dismiss this case with 

prejudice, as well as sixteen other lawsuits pending in this District, in exchange for his transfer to 

the North Carolina Department of Correction (“NCDC”) “within the next seven days.” (Id. at 3.) 

Importantly, the settlement agreement allowed Plaintiff to avoid the imposition of a strike, as 

suggested in my January 24, 2019 Recommended Disposition. Due to unanticipated 

Case 5:19-cv-00005-KGB Document 18 Filed 04/10/19 Page 2 of 4
3 

circumstances and extra security measures that were necessitated by Plaintiff’s escape history, he 

arrived at the NCDC on March 22, 2019, at 1:42 a.m., which was an hour and forty-two minutes 

later than anticipated in the settlement agreement.1

 (Doc. No. 14-4.) 

On March 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion seeking permission to withdraw the settlement 

agreement due to his allegedly untimely transfer to the NCDC. (Doc. No. 12.) Plaintiff says 

Defendants promised to transfer him by March 18, 2019, but offers no evidence to support that 

contention, which is clearly contrary to the unambiguous language of the settlement agreement. 

See Barry v. Barry, 172 F.3d 1011, 1013 (8th Cir. 1999) (a federal district court “has inherent 

power to enforce a settlement agreement as a matter of law when the terms are unambiguous”). 

More importantly, Plaintiff has not explained how the one hour and forty-two-minute delay caused 

him any harm or materially altered the terms of the settlement agreement. Plaintiff also claims 

the settlement agreement was an “underhanded deal” because Defendants did not disclose he was 

already on the ADC’s transport list. (Doc. No. 12 at 1.) But again, Plaintiff has offered no 

evidence to support his assertion. And, his argument overlooks the fact that merely being on the 

transport list in no way guaranteed he would have been promptly transported to North Carolina, 

which was the heart of the settlement agreement and a benefit of the bargain that he actually 

received. 

Because there has been no material breach of the settlement agreement, I recommend 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw be denied, the Joint Motion to Dismiss be granted, and this case 

be dismissed with prejudice. In the alternative, I recommend the Court dismiss this case for 

failure to state a plausible claim for relief and impose a strike, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

 

1 Plaintiff had previously been convicted of fleeing from police officers and escaping from the 

ADC. (Doc. Nos. 14-1, 14-2, 14-3.) 

Case 5:19-cv-00005-KGB Document 18 Filed 04/10/19 Page 3 of 4
4 

II. CONCLUSION 

 IT IS, THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 

 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Settlement (Doc. No. 12) be DENIED. 

 2. The Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) be GRANTED, and this case be 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

 3. The January 24, 2019, Proposed Findings and Recommendation (Doc. No. 5) be 

DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

 4. The Court certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation and the accompanying Judgment would not 

be taken in good faith. 

 DATED this10th day of April 2019. 

______________________________________ 

JOE J. VOLPE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:19-cv-00005-KGB Document 18 Filed 04/10/19 Page 4 of 4