Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05197/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05197-15/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

DANNY T. McCARTHY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5197

DR. NEIL MULLINS; NURSE SUE;

SHERIFF FERGUSON; MAJOR DRAKE;

CAPTAIN PETRAY; and THE

DETENTION GUARDS, All Three

Shifts DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 10th day of October, 2007, comes on for

consideration plaintiff's motion, entitled Reconsider Of Case

Closing (document #42). A review of the file in this matter

reflects the following procedural history relevant to this motion:

On January 22, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report And

Recommendation which recommended that defendants be granted

summary judgment on plaintiff's claims related to (a) denial of

adequate medical care and (b) unconstitutional conditions of

confinement, but not as to his claim that he was denied religious

freedom. 

Plaintiff filed no objection to this Report And

Recommendation, although the copy mailed to him was not returned

and it is presumed that he received it. The Report And

Recommendation was adopted by the Court on February 7, 2007.

On July 12, 2007, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order

noting that defendants' motion for summary judgment had been

granted in part, but denied as to the claim for denial of

Case 5:05-cv-05197-JLH Document 43 Filed 10/10/07 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

religious freedom. That Order directed plaintiff to respond to a

motion for summary judgment on the claim for denial of religious

freedom, and enclosed a questionnaire entitled "Response To

Summary Judgment Motion." The questionnaire repeated the fact

that this Court had granted summary judgment on the claims for

denial of adequate medial care and conditions of confinement.

Plaintiff completed and returned the questionnaire. It

appears from his response that he did not understand the meaning

of the summary judgment that had been granted, for he stated

therein that "this court has already ruled that I was denied

medical care." This, of course, was the opposite of what the

Court had ruled.

On August 13, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report And

Recommendation in which he recommended that defendants' motion for

summary judgment be granted on the claim of denial of religious

expression. Plaintiff made no objections to that Report And

Recommendation, and it was adopted on September 10, 2007.

The Docket Sheet reflects that on September 17, 2007,

plaintiff notified the Clerk of Court of a change in his mailing

address, and the Report And Recommendation was re-mailed to him on

that date. The docket sheet also reflects that no mail sent to

plaintiff had been returned as undeliverable since the Report And

Recommendation was filed.

On September 28, 2007, plaintiff filed the motion now under

Case 5:05-cv-05197-JLH Document 43 Filed 10/10/07 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

consideration. In it, he states that he moved on August 19, 2007,

and "did not recieve [sic] the first notice," and that he "never

recieved [sic] the motion for this cause to be dismissed." He

does not explain why it took him a month to notify the Clerk of

Court of his new address.

Plaintiff goes on to say "[t]his is my only means for justice

and because of the miss treatment [sic] I now have to have another

back operation." This statement indicates that what plaintiff

believes should be reconsidered is his claim for denial of

adequate medical care.

The Court is not persuaded that plaintiff failed to receive

the pieces of mail he refers to, because they were not returned to

the Clerk of Court. Moreover, even if some of plaintiff's mail

did fail to reach him, the Court finds that he was on notice, at

least by June 30, 2007 -- the day he completed the questionnaire

-- that his medical claims had been dismissed. While plaintiff

apparently misunderstood the impact of the grant of summary

judgment to defendants on that claim, the Court does not consider

that a sufficient basis to reconsider the claim. If it were, any

pro se litigant could get a "second bite at the apple" by claiming

to have misunderstood what happened the first time around.

Because plaintiff failed to make timely objection to the

Report And Recommendation, failed to explain why he did not

promptly advise the Court of his change of address, and failed to

Case 5:05-cv-05197-JLH Document 43 Filed 10/10/07 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

overcome the presumption that he received mail sent to him that

was not returned, the Court finds no basis to grant his request

for reconsideration. The motion is, therefore, denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05197-JLH Document 43 Filed 10/10/07 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>