Cantrell v. Corizon Inc et al

Filing 34

ORDER ADOPTING 26 Partial Report and Recommendations in their entirety; therefore, pltf may proceed with his failure to protect and retaliatory discipline claims against defts Jackson and Henry; the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve summons, substituted complaint, and this Order on the defts without prepayment of fees and costs; all other claims and defts are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 7/13/12. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
JIMMY SHANE CANTRELL,
ADC #98730
v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 2:12CV00018 JLH/JTR

CORIZON, INC., et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition
submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed objections. After carefully
considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court
concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial 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.

Pursuant to the screening function mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Cantrell may

proceed with his failure to protect and retaliatory discipline claims against defendants Jackson and
Henry.
2.

The Clerk is directed to prepare a summons for defendants Jackson and Henry, and

the United States Marshal is directed to serve the summons, substituted complaint, and this Order on
them through the ADC Compliance Division without prepayment of fees and costs or security
therefor.1

1

If either of the defendants are no longer ADC employees, the ADC Compliance Office shall
file, with the return of unexecuted service, a SEALED statement providing the last known private
mailing address for the unserved defendant.

3.

All other claims and defendants are DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for

failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
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.
DATED this 13th day of July, 2012.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE