Banks v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 68

ORDER ADOPTING 66 the proposed findings and recommended disposition; granting 57 the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Darlene Gallardo, Theron Houston, Brenda Hoy, Steven Norris, T.C. Outlaw, Nader Peikar, and Mary Ellen Rivers-Gr aham; and dismissing 6 Banks's complaint, without prejudice with respect to his claims against the unnamed Does and the USA, and with prejudice in all other respects. It is certified that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action would be frivolous and not in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 4/9/2015. (kdr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION DARRELL EUGENE BANKS REG# 23612-058 v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 2:13CV00121 BSM FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The proposed findings and recommended disposition (“RD”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young and plaintiff’s objections thereto have been reviewed. After a careful consideration of the objections, and a de novo review of the record, the RD are hereby approved and adopted in their entirety in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Darlene Gallardo, Theron Houston, Brenda Hoy, Steven Norris, T.C. Outlaw, Nader Peikar, and Mary Ellen Rivers-Graham [Doc. No. 57] is granted. 2. Banks’s complaint [Doc. No. 6] is dismissed without prejudice with respect to his claims against the unnamed Does and the USA, and with prejudice in all other respects. 3. It is certified that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action would be considered frivolous and not in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of April 2015. 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?