Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02014/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02014-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 999
Nature of Suit: other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

George Summerlin was incorrectly identified in the plaintiff’s 1

complaint and other pleadings as “George Southerland”. The Court finds and

orders that the style of this case should be amended to correct this

misidentification. 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

DANIEL J. MARTIN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-2014

HARRY SMITH, et al. DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT

The above referenced matter came before this court for a nonjury trial on Monday, October 30, 2006. At the conclusion of the

plaintiff’s case, the Court entered judgment ore tenus. The Court

now enters this order to reduce to writing the essential portions

of its findings then made. The Court specifies, however, that,

should there be any difference between the content of this written

order and the content of the Court’s oral statements on the

record, the latter will control.

1. The Court found that, for the stated reasons, the

unopposed motion of separate defendants Brian Syfert, Harry Smith,

and George Summerlin for judgment as a matter of law should be 1

granted and that judgment should be entered in favor of Brian

Syfert, Harry Smith, and George Summerlin as a matter of law.

2. The Court also found that, for the reasons stated, the

motion of separate defendant Wesley Kendrick for judgment as a

matter of law should be granted and that judgment should be

Case 2:05-cv-02014-JLH Document 40 Filed 11/07/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
2–

entered in favor of Wesley Kendrick. More specifically, the Court

found that separate defendant Kendrick’s actions were reasonable

and permissible under the “community caretaking functions”

outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Cady v. Dombrowski,

413 U.S. 433 (1973). See also Samuelson v. City of New Ulm, 455

F.3d 871 (8 Cir. 2006); Winters v. Adams, 254 F.3d 758 (8 Cir. th th

2001). Further, the Court found that had separate defendant

Kendrick violated the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights,

separate defendant Kendrick would be entitled to qualified

immunity for his actions. 

3. The Court hereby reaffirms its said oral findings and

orders entered on the record on October 30, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02014-JLH Document 40 Filed 11/07/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>