McAlphin v. McConnell

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION JAMES McALPHIN ADC #88328 PLAINTIFF Vv. No. 5:19-cv-361-DPM-BD B. McCONNELL, Sgt., Varner Supermax, ADC; JOHNSON, Lieutenant, Varner Supermax, ADC; and ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION DEFENDANTS ORDER On de novo review, the Court adopts the partial recommendation, Ne 6, as modified and partly sustains McAlphin’s objections, Ne 9. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).. McAlphin’s claims against the Department are dismissed with prejudice.

The modification: read liberally, McAlphin’s complaint alleges an ongoing danger because of his repeated placement near an enemy.

Ashley v. Dilworth, 147 F.3d 715, 717 (8th Cir. 1998); see also Martin v. Shelton, 319 F.3d 1048, 1050 (8th Cir. 2003). His claims about the alleged failure to protect him from the 2017 attack therefore stay in for now.

The Court agrees, though, that McAlphin hasn’t shown any ongoing danger related to his medical care after the 2017 attack. Those claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice; if McAlphin wants to pursue that slice of his case, then he must pay the $400 filing and administrative fees.

So Ordered.

Prprstill §- D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge G foun vary A0LO 2D.