IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

NICHOLAS ROOS PLAINTIFF ADC #163931

v. No: 4:19-cv-00895 BRW-PSH

YOLANDA CLARK, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER I have reviewed the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris, and the objections filed.1 After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record in this case, I approve and adopt the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommendation in all respects. I note that Plaintiff cites Entzi v. Redmann,2 for his position that the Eighth Circuit recognizes outdoor recreation as a clearly established constitutional right. Not quite. Rather, the court noted that the plaintiff argued that the law library hours infringed on “enjoying what he asserts is a constitutional right to outdoor recreation.”3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 126) is granted in part and denied in part. Judgment is awarded in favor of the Defendants on Roos’ official capacity claims for money damages. Roos’ equal protection and state law claims are dismissed without prejudice. To the extent Roos brought an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim based on the alleged danger posed by him asking for his food through a food slot, such claim is dismissed without

1 Doc. Nos. 141, 142. 2

, 1005 (8th Cir. 2007). 3 Id. (emphasis added). prejudice. Finally, Gibson is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Roos’ Eighth and First Amendment claims for money damages based on lack of sun exposure, and those claims are dismissed with prejudice. Summary judgment is denied as to Roos’ remaining claims because Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on those claims and material issues of fact remain for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of September, 2022.

Billy Roy Wilson________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE