The opinion
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.
2 485 F.3d 998, 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