Banks v. Bureau of Indian Affairs et al
Filing
14
ORDER ADOPTING 10 Partial Report and Recommendations and allowing plaintiff to proceed with his claims against defts T.C. Outlaw, Donna Zickefoose, Bier, and Thomas. Plaintiff's claims against defts Bureau of Indian Affairs, Dept. of the Interior, Eric Holder, U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Thomas Kane, Mike Doyle, Barack Obama, FBI, and Does are dismissed with prejudice and removed as party defendants. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 12/20/11. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HELENA DIVISION
FREDERICK BANKS
REG. #05711-068
PLAINTIFF
V.
NO: 2:11CV00191 JMM/HDY
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition
submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young, and the objections filed. After
carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court
concludes that the Proposed Findings and Partial 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.
Plaintiff is allowed to proceed with his claims against Defendants T.C. Outlaw,
Donna Zickefoose, Bier, and Thomas.
2.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the
Interior, Eric Holder, United States Bureau of Prisons, Thomas Kane, Mike Doyle, Barack Obama,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Does, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the names of
Defendants Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Eric Holder, United States Bureau
of Prisons, Thomas Kane, Mike Doyle, Barack Obama, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Does,
are removed a party Defendants.
DATED this
20
day of December, 2011.
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?