Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06148/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06148-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deputy Dunn
Defendant
Deputy Grinness
Defendant
Derrick Hobson
Plaintiff
Deputy Shirley
Defendant
Captain Steed
Defendant
Deputy Worley
Defendant
Deputy Wynn
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

DERRICK HOBSON PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-6148

CAPTAIN STEED;

DEPUTY WYNN; 

DEPUTY SHIRLEY;

DEPUTY DUNN;

DEPUTY WORLEY; and

DEPUTY GRINNESS DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On January 18, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 38). In his

motion, plaintiff asks the court to reconsider the memorandum opinion and judgment entered on

January 11, 2007 (Doc. 36 & Doc. 37), granting summary judgment in the defendants’ favor and

dismissing this case. Plaintiff submits with his motion to reconsider a number of exhibits that

he maintains contain “new evidence” establishing why summary judgment in the defendants’

favor should be denied.

The court prepared a questionnaire to assist the plaintiff in responding to the defendants’

summary judgment motion. (Doc. 34). In addition to responding to specific questions asked by

the court, plaintiff was informed that he could submit exhibits to the court and was given an

opportunity to provide “anyfurtherresponse” he would like to make to the defendants’ summary

judgment motion. Plaintiffs’ response was received by the court on August 18, 2006 (Doc. 35).

Case 6:04-cv-06148-RTD Document 39 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

The plaintiff’s claims stem from his incarceration at the Garland County Detention

Facility from June 26, 2004, until January 17, 2005. With the exception of his own affidavit that

was notarized on January 17, 2007, all documents attached to the motion to reconsider were in

the plaintiff’s possession when he responded to the motion for summary judgment. Moreover,

the motion to reconsidersimply provides no basis for the court to set aside its earlier ruling. The

motion to reconsider (Doc. 38) is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of January 2007.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:04-cv-06148-RTD Document 39 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>