Mack v. Studdard et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
MALCOLM CORNELIUS MACK 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 4:24-cv-4002
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STUDDARD;
SHERIFF WAYNE EASLEY;
WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER;
LEAD NURSE KING; NURSE LISA;
NURSE LESLIE; JOHN DOE MEMBERS
OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE;
CAPTAIN ADAMS; and LT. GUTHRIE 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by the Honorable Spencer G.
Singleton, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 	ECF No. 100.
Judge Singleton recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60) be
denied. 	Judge Singleton further recommends that certain claims be dismissed.0F
1 	Plaintiff has
responded with objections. ECF No. 103. The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, representing himself in this matter, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the
Miller County Detention Center (“MCDC”). Between his amended complaint (ECF No. 7) and
supplement (ECF No. 26), Plaintiff brings five claims against Defendants: 	(1) excessive force;
(2) retaliation; 	(3) deliberate indifference to 	his serious medical needs; (4) 	Fourteenth
Amendment violation of due process; and (5) cruel and unusual punishment based on conditions
1Judge Singleton recommends certain claims for dismissal after considering the summary judgment motion (ECF
No. 56) filed by Separate Defendants’ Sheriff Wayne Easley, Warden Jeffie Walker, Captain Adams, and Lieutenant
Guthrie, which was incorporated into their response to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. ECF No. 70.
Case 4:24-cv-04002-SOH Document 107 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
of confinement.1F
2 	Plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. 	Judge Singleton’s
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 100) extensively sets out the factual background giving
rise to Plaintiff’s claims. 	The Court will not repeat those facts at length in this order. 	Instead,
when necessary, the Court will discuss the facts briefly as they pertain to each claim.
Judge Singleton recommends that Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (ECF No. 60) be
denied. 	Judge Singleton, noting that all parties have filed summary judgment motions in this
case, also recommends that some claims be dismissed.2F
3 Plaintiff objects.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court may designate a magistrate judge to hear pre- and post-trial matters and to
submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). 	Within fourteen days of receipt of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
“a 	party 	may 	serve 	and 	file 	specific 	written 	objections 	to 	the 	proposed 	findings 	and
recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord Local Rule 72.2(VII)(C). After conducting
an appropriate review of the report and recommendation, the Court may then “accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge . . .
or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“[T]he specific standard of review depends, in the first instance, upon whether or not a
party has objected to portions of the report and recommendation.” 	Anderson v. Evangelical
Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc’y, 308 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1015 (N.D. Iowa 2018). 	Generally,
“objections must be timely and specific” to trigger de novo review. Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d
2In his amended complaint (ECF No. 7) and supplement (ECF No. 26), Plaintiff lists Claims One, Two, Three, Five,
and Six and does not include a named Claim Four. 	The Report and Recommendation refers to the same claim
numbers as Plaintiff has listed them. Thus, the Court will do the same in this Order.
3Judge Singleton explains that all parties in this action have filed summary judgment motions. ECF Nos. 56, 60, 63.
Separate Defendants Sheriff Wayne Easley, Warden Jeffie Walker, Captain Adams, and Lieutenant Guthrie
incorporate their summary judgment motion (ECF No. 56) and supporting documents in their response to Plaintiff’s
summary judgment motion. ECF No. 70, ¶ 6. After reviewing all the parties’ summary judgment motions, Judge
Singleton determined that addressing Plaintiff’s motion first was the most efficient plan of action.
Case 4:24-cv-04002-SOH Document 107 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
356, 358-59 (8th Cir. 1990). 	However, the Court may, in its discretion, conduct a de novo
review of any issue in a report and recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985).
The Court applies a liberal construction when determining whether pro se objections are specific.
Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995).
III. DISCUSSION
The Court will begin by addressing Plaintiff’s general and non-specific objections, which
the Court will review for clear error. The Court will then take up Plaintiff’s specific objections
to certain claims, which the Court will review de novo. The Court will address the claims in the
order of Plaintiff’s objections.
A. Plaintiff’s General Objections
Plaintiff generally argues that Judge Singleton improperly “resolved disputed issues of
material fact, . . . weighed credibility, . . . overlooked material evidence in the record, . . . [and]
misapplied controlling constitutional standards governing summary judgment.” ECF No. 103, p.
1. Plaintiff further states that a reasonable jury could find in Plaintiff’s favor on all claims. ECF
No. 103, p. 1.
“[G]eneral and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations” do not trigger de novo review. Belk
v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803, 815 (8th Cir. 1994); Meyer v. Haeg, No. 15-cv-2564 (SRN/HB), 2016
WL 6916797, at *2 (D. Minn. Nov. 21, 2016). 	In the absence of any specifically challenged
claims, the Court sees no clear error in Judge Singleton’s application of the summary judgment
standard to Plaintiff’s 	claims. 	Accordingly, 	Plaintiff’s general objections based on 	any
misapplication of the summary judgment standard are overruled.
A. Claim One
Plaintiff’s objections specifically reference Claim One, in which Plaintiff alleges that on
Case 4:24-cv-04002-SOH Document 107 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
December 4, 2023, Separate Defendant Correctional Officer Studdard used excessive force
against Plaintiff in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. 	Officer Studdard, however,
was never served with the summons and complaint in this matter despite multiple attempts by the
United States Marshals Service. 	All addresses provided by Plaintiff, other Defendants in this
case, and even Officer Studdard himself were proven incorrect.
Plaintiff was warned that Officer Studdard would be dismissed from this case if Plaintiff
could not provide an accurate address for service, and more than ninety (90) days have elapsed
since Plaintiff filed his amended complaint. 	Thus, Judge Singleton recommends that all claims
against Officer Studdard be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of all claims against Officer Studdard, arguing
that Plaintiff presented evidence that Officer Studdard used excessive force against him.
Plaintiff, however, does not address the issue of service.
Because Officer Studdard was never served with the summons and complaint, the claims
against him must be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m). 	Accordingly, after de novo
review of Claim One, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and finds that Judge Singleton
correctly determined that Officer Studdard must be dismissed from this case.
B. Claim Six
Plaintiff’s objections specifically reference Claim Six, in which Plaintiff alleges that
certain conditions of his confinement violated the Fourteenth Amendment. 	ECF No. 26, p. 1.
Plaintiff states that he had to wear clothes that were infrequently washed, that his room contained
insects, including deadly spiders, and that he was told he was not allowed to clean his room. He
states specifically that Separate Defendant Captain Adams denied him the usage of hair clippers
several times. As Defendants for Claim Six, Plaintiff listed Separate Defendants Sheriff Wayne
Easley; Warden Jeffie Walker, and Captain Adams.
Case 4:24-cv-04002-SOH Document 107 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Judge Singleton recommends that Claim Six be dismissed as to Sheriff Easley and
Warden Walker because they had no personal involvement or responsibility for the complained
of conditions of confinement. “Liability under section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct
responsibility for, the deprivation of rights. 	To establish personal liability of the supervisory
defendants, 	[Plaintiff] 	must 	allege 	specific 	facts 	of 	personal 	involvement 	in, 	or 	direct
responsibility for, a deprivation of his constitutional rights.” Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d
962, 967 (8th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff does not specifically address the issue of supervisory liability
in his objections. Thus, the Court reviews this claim for clear error.
After review, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Singleton’s recommendation that
this claim be dismissed as to Sheriff Easley and Captain Adams. 	Sheriff Easley and Warden
Walker are not liable for the complained of conditions simply because they are the Sheriff and
Warden of the MCDC. The Court, therefore, overrules Plaintiff’s objections as they relate to the
conduct of these Defendants and adopts Judge Singleton’s recommendation that Claim Six
against Sheriff Easley and Warden Walker be dismissed with prejudice.
Judge Singleton further recommends that Claim Six against Captain Adams be dismissed.
Plaintiff alleges that Captain Adams refused his requests for a haircut. 	Judge Singleton
determined that this claim against Captain Adams should be dismissed because the refusal of a
request for a haircut is not punitive in nature. 	Because Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee, to state a
conditions of confinement claim upon which relief can be granted, he must state sufficient facts
that the conditions he suffered were intended to be punitive. 	Hall v. Higgins, 77 F.4th 1171,
1179 (8th Cir. 2023). 	The Court agrees with Judge Singleton that the record contains no
evidence that would support any punitive intent being assigned to Captain Adams’ denial of
haircuts to Plaintiff.
In his objections, Plaintiff states that the Report and Recommendation “improperly
Case 4:24-cv-04002-SOH Document 107 Filed 03/20/26 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
isolates individual[] conditions rather than assessing their cumulative effect.” ECF No. 103, p. 4.
However, the reason that the haircut is the only condition analyzed by Judge Singleton is because
this is the only conduct Plaintiff linked to Captain Adams in his supplement. Plaintiff does not
allege that Captain Adams is personally involved in the other conditions he lists as comprising
his conditions of confinement claim.
Accordingly, after de novo review, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections as they
relate to the alleged conduct of Captain Adams and agrees with Judge Singleton that the
conditions of confinement claim against Captain Adams should be dismissed.
C. Claim Three
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Nurse King, Nurse Lisa, and Nurse Leslie violated his
constitutional rights when they denied him medical care for his broken finger. ECF No. 7, p. 7.
Judge Singelton recommends dismissal of this claim because Plaintiff was not denied medical
care for his finger but simply disagrees with the medical treatment he was provided.
Plaintiff’s objections do not reference a finger injury but instead focus on a knee injury.
However, Judge Singleton found that any claim involving a knee injury was not properly before
the Court, because Plaintiff brought up his knee injury for the first time in his summary judgment
motion. 	ECF No. 100, p. 14, n. 8. 	The Court agrees that any claim involving Plaintiff’s knee
should not be considered. 	Plaintiff did not allege any facts regarding a knee injury in his
amended complaint (ECF No. 7) or supplement. ECF No. 26. Parties may not assert new claims
for the first time on summary judgment. 	See Hildreth v. City of Des Moines, 773 Fed. App’x
334, 335 (8th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection as to this claim
and adopts Judge Singleton’s recommendation that this claim should be dismissed.
D. Claim Two
In Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Sheriff Wayne Easley and Warden Jeffie
Case 4:24-cv-04002-SOH Document 107 Filed 03/20/26 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Walker violated his constitutional rights by retaliating against him by threatening him after he
filed numerous grievances and complained about the conditions at MCDC. 	Judge Singleton
found that Plaintiff failed to allege any personal involvement of Sheriff Easley in any alleged
retaliatory conduct, and thus the claim against Sheriff Easly must fail as a matter of law. Judge
Singleton further found that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Warden Walker
threatened to file criminal charges against Plaintiff in retaliation for filing grievances.
Plaintiff states in his objections that his retaliation claim should proceed against all
Defendants and not just against Warden Walker. However, the alleged retaliatory conduct only
involves Warden Walker, and Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would support a claim that
any other Defendant engaged in retaliatory conduct. 	Further, Plaintiff’s objection to this claim
does not specify any alleged retaliatory conduct by any other Defendant that Judge Singleton
overlooked in the Report and Recommendation. 	Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s
objection as it relates to Claim Two and adopts Judge Singleton’s recommendation that this
claim should proceed against Warden Walker only.
E. Claim Five
In Claim Five, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Captain Adams and Lieutenant Guthrie
violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights by prolonging his disciplinary sanction of
segregation for twenty-five (25) days without a hearing. 	Judge Singleton found that a genuine
issue of material facts exists as to whether Plaintiff was entitled to a due process hearing before
being placed in segregation. 	The question being whether Plaintiff’s placement in segregation
was for punitive or non-punitive purposes.
Plaintiff’s objection as to this claim asserts that Judge Singleton “improperly limits
liability” to Adams and Guthrie “despite evidence that other officials participated in or
knowingly acquiesced in the deprivation.” 	ECF No. 103, p. 5. 	However, Plaintiff does not
Case 4:24-cv-04002-SOH Document 107 Filed 03/20/26 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
identify any other Defendant that was personally involved in denying him a due process hearing.
Plaintiff simply states that there were other Defendants involved but does not identify any
conduct by any other Defendant that Judge Singleton overlooked in his analysis of this claim.
Accordingly, after de novo review, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection as to this
claim and finds that Judge Singleton correctly recommends that the due process claim proceed
only against Captain Adams and Lieutenant Guthrie.
F. Mootness Objection
In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Singleton recommends that the denial of
medical care claim against Separate Defendants Lead Nurse King, Nurse Lisa, and Nurse Leslie
(“Medical Defendants”) be dismissed. Because he recommends dismissal of this claim, which is
the only claim against the Medical Defendants, Judge Singleton finds that the Medical
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63) be denied as moot. Plaintiff appears
to object to this finding of mootness, stating that “[c]laims for compensatory and punitive
damages for completed constitutional violations are not rendered moot by subsequent events.”
ECF No. 103, p. 5.
By adopting the Report and Recommendation, the Court is not rendering any of
Plaintiff’s claims moot. 	The Court is simply finding that because the only claim against the
Medical Defendants is being considered and dismissed in this Order, there is no need to consider
their summary judgment motion (ECF No. 63) asking the Court to dismiss this claim. The Court
is finding only that the Medical Defendants’ summary judgment motion is moot.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objection related to the mootness of the
Medical Defendants’ summary judgment motion (ECF No. 63) is overruled, and the Court agrees
with Judge Singleton that this motion should be denied as moot.
Case 4:24-cv-04002-SOH Document 107 Filed 03/20/26 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
IV. CONCLUSION
Upon review of the Report and Recommendation, and for the reasons discussed above,
the Court finds that Plaintiff has offered neither fact nor law which would cause the Court to
deviate from Judge Singleton’s Report and Recommendation. 	Therefore, the Court overrules
Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 103) and adopts the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 100)
in toto. ECF No. 24. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 60) is DENIED.
Further, the following claims are DISMISSED:
• 	Claim One for excessive force against Officer Studdard, in his individual and official
capacities is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(m), because Officer Studdard has not been served with the
summons and complaint.
• 	Claim Two for retaliation against Warden Jeffie Walker in her official capacity and
against Sheriff Wayne Easley in his individual and official capacities is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
• 	All other miscellaneous claims in Claim Two against Warden Walker and Sheriff
Wayne Easley in their individual and official capacities are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
• 	Claim Three for denial of medical care against Lead Nurse King, Nurse Leslie, and
Nurse Lisa in 	their 	individual 	and 	official 	capacities 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITH
PREJUDICE.
• 	Claim Five for violation of due process against Captain Adams and Lieutenant
Guthrie in their official capacities is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
• 	Claim Six for unconstitutional conditions of confinement against Warden Jeffie
Walker, Sheriff Wayne Easley, and Captain Adams in their individual and official
Case 4:24-cv-04002-SOH Document 107 Filed 03/20/26 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
capacities is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The only remaining Defendants in this lawsuit are Warden Jeffie Walker, Captain
Adams, and Lieutenant Guthrie in their individual capacities only. 	No official capacity claims
remain in this lawsuit. 	The following claims survive summary judgment and will proceed for
further litigation: 	(1) Claim Two against Warden Jeffie Walker; and (2) Claim Five against
Captain Adams and Lieutenant Guthrie for violation of Plaintiff’s due process rights related to
his placement in segregation without a hearing.
Defendants 	John 	Doe 	Members 	of 	the 	Disciplinary 	Committee 	should 	be
TERMINATED as Defendants in this lawsuit, because Defendant has stated that there are no
unnamed Defendants in this matter. ECF No. 58, pp. 4-5, 71, 100.
Because all claims against Lead Nurse King, Nurse Leslie, and Nurse Lisa are being
dismissed, their Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 63) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of March, 2026.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-04002-SOH Document 107 Filed 03/20/26 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>