Raglon v. Hall et al
ORDER adopting 9 the proposed findings and recommendations and dismissing without prejudice 1 Raglon's complaint; counting dismissal of this case as a "strike; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order adopting the proposed findings and recommendations and accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 11/28/2017. (kdr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
RASHUNE LEON RAGLON
CASE NO. 1:17-CV-00094 BSM
MARJORIE HALL, Health Care Provider,
North Central Unit; et al.
The proposed findings and recommendations [Doc. No. 9] submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and plaintiff Rashune Raglon’s timely objections [Doc. No.
10] have been reviewed. After de novo review of the record, the proposed findings and
recommendations are adopted in their entirety. Because Raglon is suing the defendants in
their official capacities, his claims are barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Will
v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (holding that a suit against a state
official in his or her official capacity is no different than a suit against the state itself). In his
objections, Raglon does not seek leave to amend his complaint to sue defendants in their
personal capacities. There is no need to provide such a remedy sua sponte.
Accordingly, Raglon’s complaint [Doc. No. 1] is dismissed without prejudice, and
dismissal of this case counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g). It is certified,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order
adopting the proposed findings and recommendations and accompanying judgment would
not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of November 2017.
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?