Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03040/USCOURTS-arwd-3_05-cv-03040-22/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

HARRISON DIVISION

MICHAEL S. GRIFFIS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-3040

SHERIFF CHUCK MEDFORD, et al. DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 28th day of July, 2008, comes on for consideration

the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 196) herein

and the Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 199). The Court has reviewed this case de

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

follows with respect thereto:

1. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge James

R. Marschewski recommended that judgment be entered in favor of

plaintiff and against former Carroll County Sheriff Chuck Medford

on plaintiff’s claims that he was denied due process while

incarcerated at the Carroll County Detention Center when placed on

lock-down and when placed in a restraint chair. Magistrate Judge

Marschewski recommending awarding plaintiff $7,207.00 in damages.

2. In his objections to the Report and Recommendation,

plaintiff states that he “had, has and still is demanding a trial

by jury.” (Doc. 199 at pg. 1.) This objection is without merit

and is overruled, as plaintiff did not make a timely demand for a

jury trial.

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 200 Filed 07/28/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
3. Plaintiff also objects that “the Court has refused to

produce the transcript[] from the evidentiary hearing” conducted by

Magistrate Judge Marschewski. (Id.) Plaintiff’s request for a

transcript was denied as premature, as it was made prior to the

issuance of the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff did not renew

his transcript request after the Report and Recommendation was

filed. Further, Magistrate Judge Marschewski thoroughly summarized

the witnesses’ testimony in his 52 page Report and Recommendation

and plaintiff does not identify any testimony with which he takes

issue. Accordingly, plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

4. Plaintiff’s remaining objections relate to previous

rulings by the Magistrate Judge and claims that were previously

dismissed. Plaintiff’s attempt to re-litigate these issues is

improper and his objections in this regard are, therefore,

overruled.

5. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the

plaintiff’s 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. A separate judgment will be

entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Jimm Larry Hendren

HON. JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03040-JLH Document 200 Filed 07/28/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>