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

MICHAEL OTIS ROBERTSON, ADC #106563 PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 4:21-cv-01170 KGB

GEORGE BELT, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris (Dkt. No. 53). Judge Harris recommends that the Court grant defendants Deputy George Belt, Sheriff Eric Higgins, Classification Member Michelle Conners, and Classification Member Tamara Williams’s motion for summary judgment due to plaintiff Michael Otis Robertson’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies (Dkt. No. 53, at 8; see also Dkt. No. 35). Mr. Robertson filed timely objections (Dkt. No. 54). In his objections, Mr. Robertson asks the Court to “re-examine the factual evidence” (Id., at 2). Mr. Robertson maintains that defendants are “l[ying] to the Court about their conduct and behavior” and that the Pulaski County Detention Facility lost the paperwork showing that he exhausted properly the claims contained in his amended complaint (Id.). Mr. Robertson then attaches several “Receipts of Emergency Situations” dated from August to October 2022 (Id., at 3). The Court conducted a de novo review of the record, re-examining the factual evidence as Mr. Robertson requested. The Court takes seriously Mr. Robertson’s allegations related to misrepresentation and the loss of potential evidence. However, Mr. Robertson must come to the Court with more than bare allegations. As Judge Harris correctly pointed out, Mr. Robertson’s burden at this stage of the litigation is to “meet proof with proof by showing a genuine issue as to a material fact,” and Mr. Robertson on the record before the Court has failed to do that (Dkt. No. 53, at 7). Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams,

(8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Flentje v. First Nat’l Bank of Wynne,

(Ark. 2000)); see also Lewis v. Kiker, Case No. 6:14-cv-6147,

, at *6 (W.D. Ark. May 16, 2017) (explaining that prisoners must come to the Court with more than “[their] own word” that they actually completed the grievance process). After careful consideration of the Recommendation, Mr. Robertson’s objections, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 53). The Court grants defendants’ motion for summary judgement (Dkt. No. 35) and dismisses without prejudice Mr. Robertson’s amended complaint (Dkt. No. 11). So ordered this 10th day of March, 2023.

Kustins 4. Palua— istine G. Baker United States District Judge