Buikema v. McGrew et al, No. 2:2021cv02155 - Document 73 (W.D. Ark. 2022)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 66 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in its entirety; Further, granting 59 Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying as moot 67 Motion for leave to supplement evidence; denying as moot 71 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; denying as moot 72 Motion for Subpoena. Judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on November 7, 2022. (jlm) Modified on 11/7/2022 to edit text (jlm).

Download PDF
Buikema v. McGrew et al Doc. 73 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION PAUL ROBERT BUIKEMA, JR. v. PLAINTIFF No. 2:21-CV-2155 SERGEANT BRIAN McGREW, Sebastian County Sheriff’s Department DEFENDANT OPINION AND ORDER The Court has received a report and recommendation (Doc. 66) (“R&R”) from the Chief United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford, recommending that Defendant Sergeant Brian McGrew’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 59) be granted, and that Plaintiff Paul Robert Buikema, Jr.’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. Mr. Buikema has filed objections (Doc. 70) to the R&R. Mr. Buikema has also filed three separate motions regarding the R&R and Sergeant McGrew’s underlying motion for summary judgment: a motion for leave to supplement evidence (Doc. 67); a motion for extension of time to file response (Doc. 71); and a motion for subpoena (Doc. 72). All three of these motions are premised on Mr. Buikema’s belief that the Court does not possess, and lacked the opportunity to review, surveillance video of the incident which gave rise to Mr. Buikema’s lawsuit. However, Mr. Buikema is mistaken about this. On July 11, 2022, the Court received from Sergeant McGrew’s counsel a flash drive containing the surveillance video, which was submitted as an exhibit in support of his motion for summary judgment. See Doc. 63. The Magistrate Judge reviewed the surveillance video and described its contents in the R&R. See, e.g., Doc. 66, pp. 3–4. Accordingly, Mr. Buikema’s three pending motions will be denied as moot. 1 Dockets.Justia.com As for the R&R itself, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R in light of Mr. Buikema’s objections, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and finds that his objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Magistrate Judge’s findings. The R&R is proper, contains no clear error, and will be adopted in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Paul Robert Buikema, Jr.’s motion for leave to supplement evidence (Doc. 67), motion for extension of time to file response (Doc. 71), and motion for subpoena (Doc. 72) are all DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation (Doc. 66) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, Defendant Sergeant Brian McGrew’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 59) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment will be entered separately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2022. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.