Chestang v. Robinson et al
ORDER ADOPTING 28 Partial Report and Recommendations; therefore, pltf's claims against deft Decoursey are dismissed without prejudice; Steven Decoursey terminated. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 8/14/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
KEONDRA M. CHESTANG
NO. 2:12CV00055 JLH/HDY
RUBEN ROBINSON, et al.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition
submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young, as well as the objections filed by
KeOndra M. Chestang. Magistrate Judge Young has recommended that Chestang’s claims against
Steven Decoursey be dismissed without prejudice because Decoursey has not been served with
summons and complaint as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Chestang has
objected, and in his objection asks the Court to reconsider his request for appointment of counsel,
which Magistrate Judge Young denied. Chestang argues that if he had counsel, he could obtain
service on Decoursey.
The statute provides that the district judge “may reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it
has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A). Magistrate Judge Young’s decision not to appoint counsel at this stage of the
proceeding is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, this judge may not reconsider that
decision by Magistrate Judge Young.
The recommendation by Magistrate Judge Young that Chestang’s claims against Decoursey
be dismissed without prejudice is reviewed de novo. Upon de novo review, that recommendation is
adopted as this Court’s finding in all respects.
Therefore, the claims of KeOndra M. Chestang against Steven Decoursey are dismissed
without prejudice. Decoursey’s name is removed as a defendant in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of August, 2012.
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?