Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02022/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02022-3/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

FORT SMITH DIVISION

LATRIVIA EVETTE HARRIS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-2022

SEBASTIAN COUNTY JAIL, et al. DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 30 day of August, 2007, comes on for th

consideration the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 29) and the defendants’ Objections (Doc. 30) thereto. The

Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as

follows:

1. In a Report and Recommendation issued on August 3, 2007,

Magistrate Judge James R. Marschewski recommended granting

defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) in part and

denying it in part. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended

denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment with regard to

plaintiff’s claim that her constitutional rights were violated when

she was locked-down in an administrative segregation cell, where

the walls were covered with “fecal matter, pee and food” and she

was denied cleaning materials.

2. In their objections to the Report and Recommendation, the

defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on this

claim, as plaintiff did not allege that she suffered an actual

physical injury, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).

Case 2:06-cv-02022-JLH Document 31 Filed 08/30/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
3. § 1997e(e) is “merely a limitation on damages” and, even

absent a physical injury, plaintiff could, “at a minimum ...

recover nominal damages” if she were to succeed on her conditions

of confinement claim. See Munn. v. Toney, 433 F.3d 1087, 1089 (8th

Cir. 2006); Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 722-23 (8 Cir. 2004). th

Accordingly, the Court, having reviewed this case de novo,

finds that the defendants’ objections offer neither law nor fact

requiring departure from the Report and Recommendation and the same

should be, and it hereby is, adopted in toto. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. 23) is DENIED with regard to plaintiff’s claim

concerning her conditions of confinement in administrative

segregation. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) is

GRANTED with regard to plaintiff’s remaining claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Jimm Larry Hendren

HON. JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02022-JLH Document 31 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>