White v. Spells et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
BUDDY LYNN WHITE 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Case No. 6:22-cv-6037
SERGEANT SPELL, SUPERINTENDENT
BYERS, and MS. VICKY RAWLINS (all of
the ADC Arkansas Division of Correction
Ouachita River Unit) 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed on March 10, 2023, by
the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas. ECF No. 49. Plaintiff Buddy Lynn White has objected. ECF No. 50. Thus, the matter
is ripe for the Court’s consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants Sergeant Spell, Superintendent Byers, and Ms. Vicky Rawlins, employees of the Arkansas
Division of Correction (ADC) Ouachita River Unit, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. ECF
No. 1. On April 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Defendants, in which he
brings five claims centering on Defendant Spell’s alleged sexual assault of Plaintiff and
Defendants Byers and Rawlins’ alleged deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s allegations regarding
that sexual assault. 	More specifically, Plaintiff’s claims are as follows: (Claim 1) Eighth
Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim against Defendant Spell in his individual
capacity; (Claim 2) Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim against Defendant
Byers in his official and individual capacities for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s sexual
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 51 Filed 04/20/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
assault; (Claim 3) Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim against Defendant
Rawlins in her individual capacity for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s sexual assault; (Claim
4) Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim against Defendant Byers in his official
and individual capacities; and (Claim 5) a “Gender Motivated Violence Act” claim against
Defendant Spell in his individual capacity. ECF No. 9.
Since the date of his amended complaint, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Amend 1983
Complaint (ECF No. 39), a Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 46), and a Motion to Lift
Protective Order (ECF No. 48). Judge Bryant recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
1983 Complaint and Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift the Protective Order and recommends granting
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. ECF No. 49. The Court addresses each recommendation
in turn.
II. DISCUSSION
“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.” Bramlett v.
Wellpath, LLC, No. 6:19-cv-6070, 2020 WL 4748049, at *1 (W.D. Ark. Aug. 17, 2020). 	After
reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R under the appropriate standard of review, the Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 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).
The Court must construe pro se objections liberally. United States v. Feye, 568 F. Supp.
3d 962, 967 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 19, 2021). If the prisoner “files timely and specific objections” to
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 51 Filed 04/20/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
the magistrate’s R&R, then “the district court makes ‘a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’” 	Branch v.
Martin, 886 F.2d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).
“When conducting de novo review, the district court makes its own determinations of
disputed issues and does not decide whether the magistrate’s proposed findings are clearly
erroneous.” Anderson, 308 F. Supp. 3d at 1046. “In the absence of an objection, the district court
is not required ‘to give any more consideration to the magistrate’s report than the court considers
appropriate.” Id. at 1015. This means that, in the absence of an objection, the district court should
review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation under a clearly erroneous standard of
review. 	Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996). 	“‘[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.” Lowery v. Walker, No. 4:18-cv-4108, 2019
WL 5889304, at *2 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 12, 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Belk v. Purkett, 15
F.3d 803, 815 (8th Cir. 1994).
A. Motion to Amend
The Court adopts Judge Bryant’s recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend.
Plaintiff seeks leave to make multiple amendments to his first complaint. Plaintiff wishes to clarify
Claim 1 (against Defendant Spell) as an Eighth Amendment “assault and battery—excessive
force” claim; change Claims 2 and 3 (against Defendant Byers and Defendant Rawlins,
respectively) from deliberate indifference claims to “conspiracy to interfere[e] with access to the
court” claims; add an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim to Claim 4 (against
Defendant Byers); and add a new, seventh claim (Claim 7) against Mr. Danny Burls, who is not
currently named in the instant lawsuit. 	Judge Bryant finds that Plaintiff’s requests to change
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 51 Filed 04/20/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Claims 2 and 3, to add an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim to Claim 4, and to add
a seventh claim against a new defendant are futile. 	Plaintiff does not object to these futility
findings. See ECF No. 50, at 3. Thus, reviewing these findings for clear error and finding none,
the Court adopts the recommendations. See Anderson, 308 F. Supp. 3d at 1015.
As to Plaintiff’s request to “clarify” Claim 1 as to Defendant Spell, Judge Bryant
recommends denying those requests. In Judge Bryant’s view, “Plaintiff knew about the facts on
which his proposed amendments were based but omitted the necessary allegations from his initial
and First Amended Complaints” and “provides no explanation for the failure to add these claims
in either of the prior [complaints], other than that he is pro se.” ECF No. 49, at 8.
Plaintiff objects to this finding. ECF No. 50, at 3. Plaintiff states that “he wants to state
for the record that the Plaintiff believes the Court abused its discretion and acted in bad faith when
it denied the request to amend the Complaint concerning Defendant Spell.” 	ECF No. 50, at 3.
However, Plaintiff does not direct the Court to any specific error of fact or law committed by Judge
Bryant, and his belief that Judge Bryant abused his discretion and acted in bad faith, without more,
is not specific enough to trigger the Court’s de novo review of Judge Bryant’s recommendation.
See, e.g., Lowery, 2019 WL 5889304, at *2. Thus, reviewing Judge Bryant’s recommendation for
clear error and finding none, the Court adopts Judge Bryant’s recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s
request to amend Claim 1. 	Ultimately, finding no clear error, the Court adopts in toto Judge
Bryant’s recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend.
B. Motion for Default Judgment
The Court also adopts Judge Bryant’s recommendation to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default Judgment. Plaintiff requests entry of default judgment against Defendant Spell, alleging
that Defendant Spell was properly served on May 17, 2022, his answer was due on June 7, 2022,
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 51 Filed 04/20/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
and after Defendant Spell failed to file an answer, the Court entered two show cause orders (the
first on July 6, 2022, and the second on August 12, 2022) but, to date, Defendant has not answered
the claims against him. ECF No. 46. Judge Bryant agrees with Plaintiff and recommends granting
Plaintiff’s motion and directing the Clerk of Court to enter a Clerk’s Order of Default. ECF No.
49, at 9.0F
1 Reviewing this recommendation for clear error and finding none, the Court adopts Judge
Bryant’s recommendation in toto.
C. Motion to Lift Protective Order
Finally, the Court adopts Judge Bryant’s recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s Motion to
Lift Protective Order. On September 9, 2022, Defendants Byers and Rawlings filed a motion for
a protective order. ECF No. 37. In that motion, they requested “a stay of all discovery in this case
until the resolution of their Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion is resolved.”
ECF No. 37, at 2. 	On September 9, 2022, Judge Bryant granted that motion, staying discovery
pending a decision on Defendants Byers and Rawlings’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 	ECF
No. 38. On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Lift Protective Order in which
he requests that the Court’s September 9 protective order be lifted as to Defendant Spell only. ECF
No. 48. 	Judge Bryant recommends denying this motion, stating: “Due to the entry of default
against Defendant Spell, discovery against him is moot.” ECF No. 49, at 9. Plaintiff objects to
this finding. 	Plaintiff argues that only Defendants Byers and Rawlings requested a protective
order, so the Court’s September 9 protective order should not encompass discovery as to Defendant
1Plaintiff files an “objection” to this recommendation to point out a clerical error in Judge Bryant’s recommendation.
See ECF No. 49, at 9 (recommending that the Court direct the Clerk of Court to “enter a Clerk’s Order of Default
against Defendant Moore”). Although Plaintiff is correct that there is a clerical error on page nine of Judge Bryant’s
Report and Recommendation, Judge Bryant’s conclusion and recommendation, also found on page nine, correctly
names Defendant Spell, not a “Defendant Moore.” ECF No. 49, at 9 (recommending that “Plaintiff’s Motion for
Default as to Defendant Spell (ECF No. 46) be GRANTED”).
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 51 Filed 04/20/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Spell. Plaintiff further argues that he should be allowed to conduct discovery as to Defendant Spell
“to show the Court exactly what happen[ed].” ECF No. 50, at 2.
Construing Plaintiff’s objection liberally, the Court finds that it is specific enough to trigger
de novo review. See Feye, 568 F. Supp. 3d at 967. However, even when reviewing Judge Bryant’s
recommendation de novo, the Court agrees with Judge Bryant that Plaintiff’s motion to lift the
protective order should be denied. First, Judge Bryant’s order granting a protective order (ECF
No. 39) and Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 49) do not expressly say which defendants
the protective order extends to. However, because only Defendants Byers and Rawlins requested
a protective order and Judge Bryant, in a text-only order, granted that motion, the Court construes
the protective order as encompassing discovery only as to Defendant Byers and Rawlins, not as to
Defendant Spell.
However, even assuming that Plaintiff is correct in his belief that the protective order
affects discovery pertaining to Defendant Spell, Judge Bryant is nevertheless correct that discovery
against Defendant Spell is now moot. An entry of default is appropriate when, like here, “a party
‘has failed to plead or otherwise defend’ against a pleading.” Hayek v. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of
Am., 198 F.R.D. 518, 520 (N.D. Iowa 2001) (citation omitted). A clerk’s entry of default is the
first step in a two-step process; after the Clerk of Court makes an entry of default, the party seeking
a default judgment “may seek entry of judgment on the default” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55(b). Id. Under this process, if Defendant Spell appears and requests that the entry of
default judgment be set aside pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c) and if the Court
sets aside the entry of default, the Court will, at that time, instruct the parties as to how discovery
shall proceed. However, at this juncture, an entry of default against Defendant Spell is appropriate,
and discovery, therefore, would necessarily be inappropriate. Thus, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 51 Filed 04/20/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
objection and adopts Judge Bryant’s recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s motion to lift the
protective order in toto.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ADOPTS Judge Bryant’s Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 49) in toto. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 39) and Motion
to Lift Protective Order (ECF No. 48) are hereby DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment (ECF No. 46) is hereby GRANTED. 	Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is hereby
DIRECTED to enter an Order of Default against Defendant Spell.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20th day of April, 2023.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge
Case 6:22-cv-06037-SOH-MEF Document 51 Filed 04/20/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>