The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JAMES D. WILLIAMS PLAINTIFF
v. Civil No. 4:18-cv-04059
SHERIFF JACKIE RUNION, Miller County,
Arkansas; WARDEN JEFFIE WALKER,
Miller County Detention Center (“MCDC”);
CAPTAIN GOLDEN ADAMS, MCDC;
SERGEANT ALLEN GRIFFEN, MCDC;
LIEUTENANT MILLER, MCDC; and
SERGEANT GUTHERIE, MCDC DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed pro se by Plaintiff, James D. Williams, under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Runion, Walker,
Adams, Miller and Gutherie.1 (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff has filed a Response. (ECF No. 31).
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey,
Chief United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making
a Report and Recommendation.
I. FACTUAL BACKROUND
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC”),
Tucker Unit. Plaintiff’s claims in this action arise from alleged incidents that occurred while he
was incarcerated in the Miller County Detention Center (“MCDC”) in Texarkana, Arkansas.
Plaintiff was booked into the custody of the MCDC on January 29, 2018, on a warrant
1 To date, Defendant Griffen has not been served. On October 11, 2019, the undersigned issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending Griffen be terminated as a defendant in this lawsuit for lack of service. ECF No.
33.
charged with Failure to Register and a hold for a Parole Violation. (ECF No. 29-1, p. 1).
On February 21, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a medical request about nasal congestion, itching
eyes, and a headache. (ECF No. 29-3, p. 1). Plaintiff was seen and treated that same day by
medical personnel. Id.
On March 2, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a medical request about nasal congestion and a
headache. (ECF No. 29-3, p. 2). Nurse Chelsey responded telling Plaintiff he was just seen and
treated for these conditions and he could buy ibuprofen “off commissary”. Id. On March 20,
2018, Plaintiff submitted a medical request relating to a sinus headache and a request for
medication. (ECF No. 29-3, p. 3). On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a medical request about
head pain and a sore throat. (ECF No. 29-3, p. 4).
On April 3, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a grievance, stating “On 3-2-2018 I was called to lt.
Miller office due to my legal mail being opened on 3rd shift and not in my presence – this is a
violation of legal mail policy.” (ECF No. 29-3, p. 5). The responding officer stated, “I have
forwarded your request to the appropriate authority.” Id.
On April 11, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a medical request concerning a headache lasting
over two weeks and requested further examination. (ECF No. 29-3, p. 6). Plaintiff was seen that
same day by Nurse Chelsey.
On April 24, 2018, Plaintiff filed his original Complaint in this lawsuit. (ECF No. 1).
Because Plaintiff attempted to file the lawsuit on behalf of himself and eighteen other inmates, the
Court entered an order that same day severing each individual and opening a separate case for each
plaintiff. (ECF No. 2). This order directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint asserting only
his claims and to submit an in forma pauperis application.
On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff submitted the following grievance stating:
I’ve been here since 1-29-18 and the shower in max d has mold on it, we get the
cleaning cart, but we get no chemicals to clean with, not even soap to mop
with!...water out of the shower is not a cleaning agent ‘it’s just water’ we need
something to clean the shower with and remove the mold.
(ECF No. 29-3, p. 7). On May 16, 2018, the responding officer stated, “We appreciate your
concern regarding sanitation. Please keep in mind that you are responsible for the cleanliness of
your area. We can assure you that adequate cleaning supplies are readily available upon request
from the unit officer.” Id.
On May 2, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a grievance stating:
Warden Walker, Cpt. Adams, Lt. Miller – the basis of this matter is associated with
our living conditions being extremely unsanitary to live in. our blankets are ever
laundered or switched out, the vent system leaks water, the roof tiles are sodden
from leaks in the roof, the bean chute has rust on it which is where they serve our
food 3 times a day, black mold in shower among other places, fire sprinklers not
recharged and they leak constantly. Please fix the issues soon.
(ECF No. 29-3, p. 8). In response, on May 17, 2018, Defendant Adams stated:
Are the laundry bags not large enough to place your blanket in? Hanning addressed
the water issue from the condensation build up from the air condition. I will submit
a request to maintenance about the bean holes. When I did my walk through there
was no leaks from fire sprinklers anywhere in MD which cells have this problem.
They system is primed in case of a fire.
Id.
On May 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 4).
On May 20, 2018, Plaintiff submitted a medical request about head pain and a runny nose.
(ECF No. 29-3, p. 9). Plaintiff was seen and treated that same day by medical personnel.
On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff was transferred to the custody of the ADC. (ECF No. 29-2, p.
1).
On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff gave his sworn testimony in a deposition. (ECF No. 29-6, pp.
1-75). Plaintiff testified once a week, inmates at the MCDC were given cleaning supplies which
included a broom and a dust mop. He stated they had to use the shower water to clean because
they were rarely given any cleaning chemicals. Id. at pp. 24-25. He also testified when MCDC
officers provided cleaning chemicals, it was something like Pine-Sol in a big tank with a pump on
it and the officer on duty would come in and spray. He also stated when the mold was sprayed or
the inmates clean it “we’ll wash it of and it’ll be back within a week, week and a half.” Id. at 33.
Plaintiff stated there was no schedule for receiving cleaning supplies and usually once a
week, the inmates would refuse to go in the cells, refuse count time or refuse to give food trays
back so MCDC officers would bring them cleaning supplies. Id. at p. 25. Plaintiff also states
occasionally cleaning chemicals would be brought to the inmates two to three times a week. Id.
Plaintiff testified the inmates offered to clean the shower themselves if the officers would give
them supplies, but the MCDC officers told them they were short-staffed and could not do it at the
moment. (ECF No. 26-6, p. 49). Plaintiff stated he believed if the inmates could regularly get the
chemicals it would be sufficient to take care of the mold. He also testified after he and other
inmates asked Defendant Adams for chemicals, he would provide them. Id. Plaintiff also stated
Sergeant Hanning was the officer responsible for the cleanup and the maintenance in the shower
area, but Defendant Adams was responsible for Sergeant Hanning.2 Id. at p. 50. Plaintiff testified
Defendants Runion, Walker, and Adams were the ones responsible for “nothing happening” with
the mold issue because they supervised the officers that did not fix the problem. Id. Plaintiff also
stated Defendant Miller had nothing to do with the mold. Id. at p. 53.
Plaintiff testified he filed one grievance regarding the mold on May 1, 2018. (ECF No. 29-
2 Sergeant Hanning is not a named Defendant in this action.
6, p. 33). Plaintiff stated he waited to file his grievance because Defendant Runion promised to
have the problem fixed and never did. Id. at p. 35.
As for his claim regarding the opening of legal mail outside his presence, Plaintiff testified
Defendant Miller handed him a piece of his mail and told him Sergeant Gutherie had opened
Plaintiff’s letter from the Attorney General of Texas the previous evening. (ECF No. 29-6, p. 55-
56). Plaintiff then filed a grievance regarding the incident. Id. Plaintiff stated Defendant Gutherie
accidentally opened his legal mail and this was the only time his legal mail had been opened
outside his presence while he was incarcerated at the MCDC. Id. Plaintiff testified his
correspondence with the Texas Attorney General had to do with “signing up” to pay child support
for his children and he did not experience any problems with his child support case because his
mail had been opened. Id. at pp. 58-61. Plaintiff stated Defendant Gutherie violated the MCDC’s
policy concerning legal mail and that is why he sued him. Id. Plaintiff testified he sued Defendant
Miller for the opening of his mail because she was responsible for the mail and supervised the staff
who opened his legal mail. Id. at pp. 65-67. He also stated Defendants Runion, Walker, and
Adams were also responsible for Sergeant Gutherie opening his legal mail because they were his
supervisors. Id.
The MCDC has policies in place regarding the operation of the facility and the treatment
of inmates including but not limited to a procedure for filing grievances, the cleanliness of the jail,
and the opening of legal mail. (ECF No. 29-6, pp. 1-37). The MCDC’s policy and procedure
regarding the submission of grievances provides that complaints are first submitted through a
KIOSK. Inmate “requests/concerns/complaints” are reviewed daily (excluding weekends and
holidays) and sent to the appropriate person to address. Complaints are forwarded to the lowest
appropriate supervisory level to address and respond. (ECF No. 29-5, p. 4). The supervisor
addressing the complaint is required to deliver a response to the inmate. Inmates who are unable
to resolve a complaint through the procedure using the KIOSK may then participate in the
MCDC’s grievance procedure.
The policy provides that the “Jail Warden or designee” is responsible for the coordination
and management of grievance procedures. Id. Grievances are to be routed to the Warden or Risk
Management (“RM”) Officer. Within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of a grievance, the
grievance shall be reviewed and if applicable thoroughly investigated. The investigation results
are then provided to the Jail Warden or RM Officer, in writing. The Jail Warden may extend
response time periods for a reasonable period if necessary. Any extension is to be communicated
in writing to the complainant/inmate. Id. at p. 5.
Inmates at the MCDC are required to follow a specific procedure to submit a grievance.
(ECF No. 29-5, pp. 5-7). First, a grievance must be submitted on a Request for Administrative
Remedy Form, jail form 09.01A, from a shift officer or supervisor. Grievances are assigned a case
number, an investigation is conducted, and a “sustained or not sustained finding” is rendered. The
form/grievance is then forwarded to a Lieutenant or Captain for distribution. Id. at 6. The
Lieutenant or Captain then makes a copy of the form, acknowledged by the Jail Warden or RM
Officer for the inmate’s classification file. The Lieutenant or Captain then completes the jail form
MCSO “Inmate Acknowledgment for Grievance”. The original Request for Administrative
Remedy Form [grievance] is then delivered to the inmate. The inmate is then required to
acknowledge receipt in writing on the “Inmate Acknowledgement for Grievance” form. Id.
An inmate may appeal the result of the grievance findings to the Jail Warden by stating
they wish to “APPEAL THE FINDINGS ON THE ‘INMATE ACKNOWLEGEMENT FORM’”.
Id. Following the disposition of the appeal, “the Request for Administrative Remedy Form shall
be returned to the RM Officer and the case number closed out. The form is then forwarded to the
Lieutenant or Captain for distribution, copies are made for the inmate’s classification file, and then
delivered to the inmate. Id. at p. 7.
It is also the policy of the MCDC to provide staff and inmates with a clean, sanitary living
environment consistent with all applicable codes, Arkansas Criminal Detention Facility Standards,
and sound correctional practices. (ECF No. 29-5, p. 22).
The policy of the MCDC regarding inmate legal mail states incoming legal mail may be
opened solely for determining it is in fact legal mail and contains no contraband. (ECF No. 29-5,
p. 14). In addition, legal mail may be opened only in the presence of the inmate and only the
signature and letterhead may be read. Id.
According to the affidavit of Defendant Walker, the regular maintenance and cleaning
schedule at the MCDC requires inmates be given cleaning materials to clean their living areas
(including shower areas) at least once per week. Inmates are provided with a mop, broom, and a
water diluted bleach solution. (ECF No. 29-2, pp. 4-5). Defendant Walker states the bleach is
diluted so the concentration will not irritate the inmates or officers respiratory systems. Id.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on April 24, 2018. (ECF No. 1). That same day, the
Court directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint asserting only his claims against Defendants
and to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2). On May 14,
2018, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 4). His application to proceed IFP was
granted the following day. (ECF No. 7).
Plaintiff names Sheriff Jackie Runion, Warden Jeffie Walker, Captain Golden Adams,
Sergeant Allen Griffen,3 Lieutenant Miller, and Sergeant Gutherie as Defendants in his Amended
Complaint. (ECF No. 4). He claims mold in the shower has caused him to have a constant cold
and “my nose runs all the time”. Id. at p. 4. Plaintiff alleges he informed Defendants about the
mold and they have “denyed the conditions exist” and refused to correct the unsanitary conditions.
Id. Plaintiff also claims Defendants opened his legal mail outside of his presence. He is suing
Defendants in their personal and official capacities. He is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages.
On May 30, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s official capacity claims and his individual
capacity claim against all Defendants for failure to respond to grievances. (ECF No. 9). The only
claims currently before the Court are the individual capacity claims against Defendants Runion,
Walker, Adams, Miller and Gutherie related to conditions of confinement and the opening of his
legal mail.
On July 11, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing they are
entitled to summary judgment because: 1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
with respect to his conditions of confinement claim; 2) Plaintiff was not housed in unconstitutional
conditions of confinement; 3) Plaintiff did not suffer a constitutional violation by the opening of
mail from the Office of Attorney General; and 4) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
(ECF No. 27).
On July 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition to Defendants’ motion
reasserting the claims set forth in his Amended Complaint and claiming, for the first time, he was
3 As previously stated, Allen Griffen was never served and therefore is not properly before the Court.
denied adequate medical care and the MCDC was overcrowded. (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff’s
allegations of inadequate medical care and overcrowding are not before the Court and will not be
addressed in this Report and Recommendation. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Statement of
Facts in support of his Response. (ECF No. 32).
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the record "shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(a); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). "Once
a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with the
non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine
issue of material fact exists.” Nat’l Bank of Comm. v. Dow Chem. Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir.
1999).
The non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. "They must show there is sufficient
evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor." Nat’l Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). "A case founded on speculation or suspicion is
insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment." Id. (citing, Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d
621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)). “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is
blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not
adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott
v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies – Conditions of Confinement
Plaintiff alleges he was subjected to unlawful conditions of confinement – mold in the
showers – at the MCDC for four months in 2018. Defendants argue Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies on this claim before he filed the instant lawsuit and consequently his
claims are barred.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides: “[n]o action
shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other
Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Exhaustion is mandatory. Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002). In Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), the Supreme Court
concluded “to properly exhaust administrative remedies prisoners must complete the
administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.” Id. at 218
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court stated that the “level of detail necessary
in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system to system and claim
to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper
exhaustion.” Id. “[F]ailure to exhaust available administrative remedies is an affirmative defense,
not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction.” Lenz v. Wade, 490 F.3d 991, 993 n. 2 (8th Cir. 2007).
The Eighth Circuit has recognized two exceptions to the PLRA exhaustion requirement:
(1) when officials have prevented prisoners from utilizing the grievance procedures; or (2) when
the officials themselves fail to comply with the grievance procedures. See Gibson v. Weber, 431
F.3d 339, 341 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2001) (explaining a
prisoner is only required to exhaust those administrative remedies that are available and any
remedies that prison officials prevent a prisoner from utilizing are not considered available)).
There is no dispute the MCDC had a grievance procedure in place for detainees to use at
the time the incidents occurred which Plaintiff claims resulted in a violation of his rights. (ECF
No. 29-5, pp. 4-7). The summary judgment record confirms Plaintiff filed a grievance relating to
the issue of mold in the showers on May 1, 2018. (ECF No. 29-3, p. 7). This grievance was filed
six days after Plaintiff filed his original Complaint and did not mention any of the Defendants.
The MCDC’s administrative officer responded to this grievance on May 16, 2018, one day after
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. The record also reflects on May 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed
another grievance directed to Defendants Walker, Adams and Miller concerning various living
conditions including dirty blankets, a leaking ventilation system and roof, a rusty bean chute and
black mold in the shower. (ECF No. 29-3, p. 8). Defendant Adams responded to this grievance
on May 17, 2018, two days after Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint.
As previously mentioned, the MCDC’s grievance procedure requires an inmate to submit
a grievance through the kiosk and then fill out additional forms if the grievance is not resolved.
Based on the summary judgment record it is clear Plaintiff did not comply with the MCDC’s
grievance procedure before he initiated his lawsuit. Not only were his grievances submitted after
he filed this lawsuit, MCDC officers responded to each grievance after Plaintiff filed his Amended
Complaint, and Plaintiff did not continue to pursue the grievance procedure after using the kiosk.
Finally, Plaintiff has not alleged any of the Defendants prevented him from utilizing the
grievance procedure or failed to comply with the procedure itself. Therefore, neither of the
exceptions to the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement apply. Accordingly, I recommend Defendants’
summary judgment motion regarding Plaintiff’s condition of confinement claims be dismissed
without prejudice:4
B. Opening of Legal Mail
Plaintiff alleges Defendant Guthrie opened his legal mail on one occasion while he was
incarcerated in the MCDC. Plaintiff also claims Defendants Runion, Walker, Adams and Miller
are responsible for Defendant Gutherie’s actions because they supervised him.
Inmates have a First Amendment right of free speech to send and receive mail. Hudson v.
Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 547 (1984). "The fact of confinement and the needs of the penal institution
impose limitations on constitutional rights, including those derived from the First Amendment."
Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’Union, 433 U.S. 119, 125 (1977). "Prisoners’ First
Amendment rights encompass the right to be free from certain interference with mail
correspondence." Davis v. Norris, 249 F.3d 800, 801 (8th Cir. 2001). "Interference with legal
mail implicates a prison inmate’s right to access to the courts and free speech as guaranteed by the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution." Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351
(2d Cir. 2003).
In the prison context, “[p]rivileged prisoner mail, that is mail to or from an inmate’s
attorney and identified as such, may not be opened for inspections for contraband except in the
presence of the prisoner.” Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997). (quotation and
citation omitted). However, the Eighth Circuit has “never held or suggested that an isolated,
inadvertent instance of opening incoming confidential legal mail will support a § 1983 damage
action.” Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2012) quoting Gardner, 109 F.3d at 431.
4 Claims that are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be dismissed without prejudice.
See Sergent v. Norris, 330 F.3d 1084, 1085 (8th Cir. 2003).
Instead, the Court has found that “an isolated incident, without any evidence of improper motive
or resulting interference with the inmate’s right to counsel or to access the courts, does not give
rise to a constitutional violation.” Id. To assert a successful claim for denial of meaningful access
to the courts, an inmate must demonstrate that he suffered prejudice from the “inadvertent opening
of legal mail.” Id.
Moreover, “Liability under section 1983 requires a causal link to, and direct responsibility
for, the deprivation of rights. To establish personal liability on the part of a defendant, [the
plaintiff] must allege specific facts of personal involvement in, or direct responsibility for, a
deprivation of [his] constitutional rights.” Clemmons v. Armontrout, 477 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir.
2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The law is clear there is no respondeat
superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-677 (2009);
Gordon v. Hansen, 168 F.3d 1109, 1113 (8th Cir. 1999).
At the time of the events in question, Defendant Walker was the Warden at the MCDC and
Defendant Runion was the Sheriff of Miller County. General responsibility for supervising a
detention center is insufficient to establish personal involvement. Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d
976, 981 (8th Cir. 2011). In addition, there is no evidence Defendants Miller or Adams were
involved in or even present when Defendant Gutherie opened Plaintiff’s mail. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Runion, Walker, Adams and Miller fail as a matter of law
and I recommend the claims against them based on the opening of Plaintiff’s mail be dismissed
with prejudice.
As for Defendant Guthrie, the summary judgment record confirms he accidentally opened
a piece of Plaintiff’s mail on one occasion. For purposes of this Report and Recommendation the
Court will assume, arguendo, the letter to Plaintiff from the Texas Attorney General regarding
paperwork he had filed to begin making child support payments to his children constitutes legal
mail. Even so, Plaintiff’s claim fails because he has not alleged there was any improper motive
on the part of Defendant Gutherie and Plaintiff admits he did not suffer any injury or prejudice
from the opening of his legal mail. See e.g., Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 1997)
(claim fails without evidence of improper motive or resulting interference with inmate's right to
counsel or access to courts).
In addition, Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant Gutherie violated his rights because he
failed to follow the MCDC’s legal mail policy is without merit. Violation of a prison policy alone
does not give rise to section 1983 liability. See Gardner, 109 F.3d 430. Accordingly, Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim against Defendant Gutherie for a violation of his rights based on the
inadvertent opening of his legal mail on one occasion. I recommend the claim against Defendant
Gutherie be dismissed with prejudice.5
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I recommend Defendants Runion, Walker, Adams, Miller,
and Gutherie’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 27) be GRANTED and all remaining
claims be dismissed. Specifically, I recommend Plaintiff’s condition of confinement claims
against Defendants be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. I recommend Plaintiff’s claims
against all Defendants based on the opening of his legal mail be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
5 Because the Court has found Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights it is not necessary to
address the issue of qualified immunity.
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 11th day of October 2019.
Barry A. Bryant
/s/
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE