Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05188/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05188-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roberto Candelario
Plaintiff
Keith Ferguson
Defendant
Grant
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

ROBERTO CANDELARIO PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-5188 

DEPUTY GRANT; and

SHERIFF KEITH FERGUSON DEFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Roberto Candelario, a former inmate of the Benton County Detention Center (BCDC),

brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint was filed in

forma pauperis (IFP) and it is now determined whether it should be served upon the defendants.

I. Background

On approximately August 24, 2006, Candelario was incarcerated at the BCDC on a

charge of illegal re-entry into the country. Addendum at ¶ 1. Candelario contends he was

standing near the door to his cell when Deputy Grant used excessive force against him.

Complaint at page 4; Addendum at ¶ 2. Specifically, Candelario alleges Grant twisted his right

arm and tackled him to the floor. Complaint at page 4. 

Candelario alleges he did not resist Grant in anyway. Addendum at ¶ 3. Candelario

suffered a “gash” to his right elbow. Complaint at page 4. He sought medical treatment as a

result of the injury. Addendum at ¶ 4.

II. Discussion

Candelario’s claim against Sheriff Keith Ferguson is subject to dismissal. Candelario has

not alleged Sheriff Ferguson personally violated his constitutional rights. 

A claim of deprivation of a constitutional right cannot be based on a respondeat superior

Case 5:06-cv-05188-JLH Document 8 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

theory of liability. See Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).

In other words, Sheriff Ferguson cannot be held liable merely because he employed Grant. 

There is no allegation that Sheriff Ferguson was involved in any way in the actions taken

by Grant or was even present when the use of force occurred. See e.g., Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d

966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995)(§ 1983 liability requires personal involvement or an allegation that the

supervisor had knowledge of the unconstitutional conduct and turned a blind eye to it); Fruit v.

Norris, 905 F.2d 1147, 1151 (8th Cir. 1990)(supervisors not liable under respondeat superior

theory,supervisor must be personally involved in, deliberately indifferent to, or tacitly authorize

the constitutional violation). Further, Candelario has not alleged that the BCDC operated

pursuant to a policy or custom that violated his constitutional rights. See e.g., Pietrafeso v.

Lawrence County, 452 F.3d 978, 982 (8th Cir. 2006)(“A county is liable [under § 1983] if an

action or policy itself violated federal law, or if the action or policy was lawful on its face but

led an employee to violate a plaintiff’s rights and was taken with deliberate indifference as to its

known or obvious consequences.”)(citation omitted). Thus, Candelario’s claim against Sheriff

Ferguson is subject to dismissal.

III. Conclusion

I therefore recommend Candelario’s claims against Sheriff Ferguson be dismissed on the

grounds that the claims are frivolous and fail to state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-

(iii)(IFP action, or any portion thereof, may be dismissed on such grounds at any time). However,

we note that service of the complaint on Deputy Grant will be directed by separate order. 

Candelario has ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Candelario is

Case 5:06-cv-05188-JLH Document 8 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 5th day of February 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05188-JLH Document 8 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>