May v. Haynes et al

Filing 48

ORDER adopting 44 Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. The Doe Defendants are dismissed from this action without prejudice. Defendants' 29 motion to dismis s, and, alternatively, motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendants are granted summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. Mr. May's claims against defendants A. Haynes, Ron Smith, Graham, and Hay are dismissed without prejudice due to a lack of exhaustion. Mr. May's 42 motion to supplement the record is denied as moot. To the extent that Mr. May wishes to appeal this Order and the corresponding Judgment, Mr. May must now file a new notice of appeal. Mr. May's prior filing, titled "notice of appeal" has no effect because it was premature. 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. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 10/31/2014. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
LOREN W. MAY, SR.,
Reg. #17748-045
V.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:13-cv-00127 KGB/JTR

A. HAYNES
Warden, FCI-FC, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition
(“Partial Recommendation”) (Dkt. No. 44) and the Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition (“Recommendation”) (Dkt. No. 45) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas J. Ray. Plaintiff Loren W. May, Sr., has filed a “notice of appeal” (Dkt. No. 46).
Because Mr. May made this filing before the Court entered this Order and the corresponding
Judgment, the Court construes the filing as Mr. May’s objections to the Partial Recommendation
and Recommendation. After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review
of the record, the Court concludes that the Partial Recommendation and Recommendation 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.

The “Doe Defendants” are dismissed from this action without prejudice.

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and, alternatively, motion for summary judgment

is granted (Dkt. No. 29). Defendants are granted summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion.
3.

Mr. May’s claims against defendants A. Haynes, Ron Smith, Graham, and Hay

are dismissed without prejudice due to a lack of exhaustion.
4.

Mr. May’s motion to supplement the record is denied as moot (Dkt. No. 42).

5.

To the extent that Mr. May wishes to appeal this Order and the corresponding

Judgment, Mr. May must now file a new notice of appeal. Mr. May’s prior filing, titled “notice
of appeal,” has no effect because it was premature. FutureFuel Chem. Co. v. Lonza, Inc., 756
F.3d 641, 648 (8th Cir. 2014).
6.

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.
SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2014.

________________________________
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2