Blankenship v. Gentry et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
ROY GLENN BLANKENSHIP 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 4:22-cv-4055
SHERIFF ROBERT GENTRY; CHRIS
WALCOTT; NURSE TAMMY FOWLER;
TERRY HERNANDEZ; and ANNA MEJIA 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the Honorable Barry
A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ECF No. 72.
Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants Sheriff Robert Gentry, Chris Walcott, Terry
Hernandez, and Anna Mejia’s (“County Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
50) be granted. Judge Bryant also recommends that Defendant Nurse Fowler’s (“Fowler”) Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 53) be granted. Judge Bryant notes that Plaintiff brings three
claims against all Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983: two claims alleging Eighth
Amendment violations, and one claim alleging retaliation for bringing a prior lawsuit. 	Judge
Bryant determines that the factual record fails to establish the two Eighth Amendment claims and
that they should be dismissed with prejudice. Judge Bryant also notes that the Defendants did not
seek summary judgment on the retaliation claim. Therefore, Judge Bryant recommends that the
retaliation claim remain.
Plaintiff filed a timely objection. ECF No. 73. Plaintiff’s objection is not directed at the
reasoning underlying Judge Bryant’s recommendation. 	Instead, Plaintiff expresses complaints
regarding his access to discovery and evidence to support his claims. 	However, Judge Bryant
details how the discovery issues Plaintiff raises now were previously raised and have already been
Case 4:22-cv-04055-SOH Document 82 Filed 02/14/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
addressed. 	ECF No. 72, p. 3-5. 	Defendant Fowler also filed a timely objection. 	ECF No. 74.
Fowler’s objection argues that Plaintiff never made a claim for retaliation against her and that there
should not be such a claim that remains pending against her. The Court notes Fowler’s objection,
but also takes notice that she joined the County Defendants in a subsequent motion for summary
judgment solely addressing Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. ECF No. 78. The Court interprets that
development as demonstrating that Fowler is content with addressing her disputes regarding any
retaliation claim through that separate motion.
Upon review, finding no clear error on the face of the record and that Judge Bryant’s
reasoning is sound, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 72) in toto. County Defendants Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) is hereby GRANTED. 	Defendant Fowler’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 53) is hereby GRANTED. 	Plaintiff’s two Eighth Amendment
claims against all Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 	Plaintiff’s
retaliation claim remains for further evaluation.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of February, 2025.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:22-cv-04055-SOH Document 82 Filed 02/14/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>