Hurlbut et al v. Burl et al
ORDER adopting 16 proposed findings and recommendations and dismissing the complaint without prejudice; denying as moot pending motions 2 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 and 18 ; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/04/2013. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DANIEL B. HURLBUT, ADC # 658898;
DELWRICK COLEMAN, ADC # 656538;
SAMSON TILLIS, ADC # 141221; HARRY
SURBUR, ADC # 89794; JOSEPH SMITH,
ADC # 127880; JAMES EVERETT, ADC
# 109614; CHRISTOPHER BREWER, ADC
# 652673; BEN MCCARTER, ADC # 128344;
and PAUL BRANSON, ADC # 097273
DANNY BURL; TODD BALL; DAVID MILLS;
RAY HOBBS; LARRY MAY; JIM SMITH;
WENDY KELLEY; RAYMOND NAYLOR; and
The Court has considered the objections to Magistrate Judge H. David
Young's proposed findings and recommendations, N2 16 & 17. On de novo
review, the Court adopts Judge Young's proposal.
R. CIV. P. 72(b).
Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs Coleman,
Tillis, Surbur, Smith, Everett, Brewer, and Branson have not complied with
the Court's Order to submit individual amended complaints by 4 November
2013 or risk dismissal, N2 4 at 2. McCarter filed an amended complaint, N2 15,
but fails to state a claim. Hurlbut filed a motion clarifying his claims, NQ 7,
but he, too, fails to state a claim. And Hurlbut now requests dismissal
without prejudice, NQ 18. Pending motions, NQ 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, & 18, are
denied as moot. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this
Order and the related Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
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?