Coe v. White et al

Filing 48

ORDER adopting 47 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. Defendant Rick Gillespie's 20 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Religious Land Use and I nstitutionalized Persons Act and free exercise claims against Defendant Rick Gillespie are DISMISSED with prejudice. All other claims in Plaintiff's 32 Amended Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 7/20/2015. (ks)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION JOHN DAVID COE, ADC # 652804 v. PLAINTIFF No. 1:15CV00037-JLH-JJV DAVID WHITE, Warden, North Central Unit, ADC; et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe. No objections have been filed. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Defendant Rick Gillespie’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff’s Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and free exercise claims against Defendant Rick Gillespie are DISMISSED with prejudice. 3. All other claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 32) are DISMISSED without prejudice. 4. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. SO ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2015. _________________________________ J. LEON HOLMES 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?