Deaton v. May et al

Filing 111

ORDER adopting in part 57 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying without prejudice as moot 44 motion for preliminary injunction; denying 52 motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 3/31/2015. (ks)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION CHRISTOPHER DEATON, ADC #143472 v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 2:13-cv-00136 KGB-JTK LARRY MAY, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is plaintiff Christopher Deaton’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order ruling on two Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney and other matters (Dkt. Nos. 47, 52). Mr. Deaton has pointed to no error in the Court’s rulings, and the Court sees none. The Court denies Mr. Deaton’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 52). The Court also has received Proposed Findings and Recommendations from Judge Kearney recommending that the Court deny Mr. Deaton’s pending motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. Nos. 44, 57). The Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in part by adopting the conclusion reached by Judge Kearney but not the reasoning (Dkt. No. 57). The Court rejects the reasoning based on recent legal developments, including the decision in Holt v. Hobbs, ̶ U.S. ̶ , 135 S. Ct. 853 (Jan. 20, 2015), and based on representations and arguments made in defendants’ pending motion to dismiss Mr. Deaton’s claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc1 et seq. (Dkt. No. 108). At this time, the Court denies without prejudice as moot Mr. Deaton’s motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 44). SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2015. ___________________________________ Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge 2

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?