Williams v. Hill et al
Filing
9
ORDER adopting the proposed findings and recommended disposition; dismissing this case without prejudice pursuant to the screening function mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dismissal of this action constitutes a strike, as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). It is hereby certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a (3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order and the accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 4/30/12. (hph)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
JAMES EDWARD WILLIAMS, ADC #78429
v.
PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 1:12CV00032 BSM/JTR
JAMES A. HILL, Sergeant,
Grimes Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
The proposed findings and recommended disposition submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed objections have been reviewed. After carefully
considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record, it is concluded that the
proposed findings and recommended disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and
adopted in their entirety in all respects.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.
Pursuant to the screening function mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this case is
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.
2.
Dismissal of this action constitutes a “strike,” as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3.
It is hereby certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis
appeal from this order and the accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 30th day of April 2012.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?