Opinion
4:21-cv-00069-KGB
01-31-2023
CLEVELAND LEE WRIGHT, a/k/a Maiakhen Asar Maakheru ADC #119139 PLAINTIFF v. SONDRA L. PARKER, Mental Health Supervisor, Varner Unit, ADC; et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
KRISTINE G. BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendations dated March 4, 2021 (“Partial Recommendation”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and the Proposed Findings and Recommendations dated April 11, 2022 (“Recommendation”) also submitted by Judge Volpe (Dkt. Nos. 6; 34). The Court addresses separately the Partial Recommendation and the Recommendation.
I. Partial Recommendation
In his Partial Recommendation, Judge Volpe recommends that this Court dismiss without prejudice Sondra Parker, D. Compton, and Dale Marshal Reed as parties to this lawsuit and certify that an in forma pauperis appeal from an order adopting the Partial Recommendation would not be taken in good faith (Dkt. No. 6, at 2-3). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Plaintiff Cleveland Wright filed no objections to the Partial Recommendation, and the time for filing objections has passed. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Partial Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 6). The Court dismisses without prejudice defendants Parker, Compton, and Reed as parties to this lawsuit and certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
II. Recommendation
In his Recommendation, Judge Volpe recommends that this Court grant defendants James Gibson, Rory Griffin, Vickey Haycox, Jada Lawrence, Robert A Parker, and James Shipman's (collectively “remaining defendants”) motion for summary judgement and certify that an in forma pauperis appeal from an order and judgment adopting the Recommendation would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (Dkt. No. 34, at 11-12). Wright filed timely objections to Judge Volpe's Recommendation (Dkt. No. 35). After reviewing the Recommendation, Wright's objections, and the record de novo, the Court concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 34). The Court writes separately to address certain of Wright's objections (Dkt. No. 35).
Wright roots the objections in the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (Dkt. No. 35). However, outside of stating that Wright objects “do [sic] to the Equal Protection Clause[,]” Wright only restates the text of the Fourteenth Amendment (Id.). Wright does not make out an equal protection claim here, nor did Wright do so in the pleadings (Dkt. No. 4, at 7-8; 35). See generally Klinger v. Dep't of Corr., 31 F.3d 727, 731 (8th Cir. 1994) (explaining that “the first step in an equal protection case is determining whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that she was treated differently than others who were similarly situated to her.”); see also Davis v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 594 Fed.Appx. 60, 62 (3d Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (citing Klinger, 31 F.3d at 731).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses without prejudice defendants Parker, Compton, and Reed as parties to this lawsuit (Dkt. No. 6). The Court also grants remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment, enters judgment in favor of the remaining defendants, and dismisses with prejudice Wright's amended complaint as to the remaining defendants (Dkt. Nos. 4; 30; 34). The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from this Order and the accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith.
It is so ordered.