Cincoski v. Burl et al
ORDER adopting 17 Judge Volpe's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition as its own except the dismissal should be without prejudice; denying as moot 14 and 15 Cincoski's Motions for Appointed Counsel and 21 Motion for Prelimin ary Injunction; dismissing without prejudice 13 Cincoski's Amended Complaint; and, certifying that an informa pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/13/2011. (dmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
ADC # 143538
Case No. 2:10-cv-188-DPM
BURL, BALL, PETER EDWARDS,
JOHN LAD, C. WRIGHT and
The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe's Proposed
Finding and Recommendations, Document No. 17, and Daniel Cincoski's
objections, Document Nos. 19 & 20. After de novo review, the court adopts
Judge Volpe's recommended disposition as its own except the dismissal
should be without prejudice.
R. ClV. P. 72(b)(3). Cincoski's claims are
either too general, or where specific too fanciful, to be plausible. Cincoski's
motions for appointed counsel, Document Nos. 14 & 15, and for a preliminary
injunction, Document No. 21, are denied as moot.
Cincoski's amended complaint, Document No. 13, is dismissed without
prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. This dismissal counts as
a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court certifies that an in forma
pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not
be taken in goof faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
D.P. Marshall Jr.
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?