Rushing v. Guy et al

Filing 141

ORDER adopting in their entirety 139 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; granting defendants' 126 129 motions for summary judgment; dismissing without prejudice Mr. Rushing's allegations against defendants Martin Evans, Jr., Ryan H ennessey, John Maples, Kevin Darland, Antonio Garcia, Wendy Kelley, Dr. Melvin Nance, and Billy Cowell for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; dismissing with prejudice Mr. Rushing's allegations against Richard Guy; and dismissing without prejudice Mr. Rushing's allegations against defendants Dr. Buchman and unidentified Does. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 12/29/2015. (rhm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION RICKY LEE RUSHING, ADC #065405 v. PLAINTIFF 1:14-cv-00028-KGB-JTK WARDEN GUY, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has received Proposed Findings and Recommendations from United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 139). No objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed. After a review of those Proposed Findings and Recommendations, the Court adopts them in their entirety. Accordingly, it is ordered that defendants’ motions for summary judgment are granted (Dkt. Nos. 126, 129). The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Rushing’s allegations against defendants Martin Evans, Jr., Ryan Hennessey, John Maples, Kevin Darland, Antonio Garcia, Wendy Kelley, Dr. Melvin Nance, and Billy Cowell for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court dismisses with prejudice Mr. Rushing’s allegations against Richard Guy. The Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Rushing’s allegations against defendants Dr. Buchman and unidentified Does. It is so ordered this 29th day of December, 2015. ______________________________________ Kristine G. Baker United States District Court 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?