# Newman v. Brown

> District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 6, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11014191

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 6, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11014191

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming the grant of summary judgment because a plaintiff failed to properly refer to specific pages of the record that supported his position

## Opinion text

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

CHRIS DEVON NEWMAN PLAINTIFF
ADC #131157

v. No: 4:24-cv-00742-KGB-PSH

RODNEY BROWN, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On April 30, 2025, defendants Rodney Brown, Roosevelt Barden, Latasha
Williams, Deshun Thomas, and Marquis Taylor (the “ADC Defendants”) filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment together with a Brief in Support and Statement of
Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. Nos. 19-21) seeking to dismiss Plaintiff Chris
Devon Newman’s claims against them based on his alleged failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies. Newman now has an opportunity to file a
response opposing the motion. To be considered, the response must be filed within
twenty-eight days of this order’s entry date.
At the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff cannot rest upon mere allegations
and, instead, must meet proof with proof. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Accordingly,
Newman’s response must include legal arguments as well as evidence establishing
that there is a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved at a hearing or
trial. Such evidence may include declarations or notarized affidavits that he or others
have signed. Affidavits and declarations are sworn statements that are made under
penalty of perjury (see 28 U.S.C. § 1746). Unsworn statements will not be

considered in deciding the motion for summary judgment. And to be considered, an
affidavit or declaration must be based on personal knowledge of the person who
signs it.

If Newman files a response, he must also file a separate, short statement which
lists: (a) any disagreement he has with the specifically numbered factual assertions
contained in the defendant’s statement of undisputed facts; and (b) any other
disputed facts that he believes must be resolved at a hearing or trial. See Local Rule

56.1, Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
If Newman disputes any of the facts set forth in the defendant’s statement of
undisputed facts, he must identify each numbered paragraph that contains the facts

he disputes and, for each paragraph, explain why he disputes those facts.
Finally, Newman is advised that if he intends to rely upon grievances or
records that have been filed with the Court previously, he must specifically refer to
those documents by docket number, page, date, and heading. The Court will not sift

through the file to find support for Newman’s factual contentions. See Crossley v.
Georgia-Pacific, Corp., 355 F.3d 1112, 1113-14 (8th Cir. 2004) (affirming the grant
of summary judgment because a plaintiff failed to properly refer to specific pages of

the record that supported his position).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Newman may file a response to the Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment along with a separate statement of disputed facts that complies with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56, Local Rule 56.1, and the instructions set forth in this Order within
twenty-eight days. While Newman is not required to file a response to the motion
for summary judgment, if he does not respond, the facts set forth in the Defendants’
statement of facts may be deemed admitted by Newman, pursuant to Local Rule
56.1(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6" day of May, 2025.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11014191. Public record. Not legal advice.