Slayton v. Martinez et al

Filing 36

ORDER approving and adopting 31 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; directing the Clerk of Court to alter the docket to reflect that defendant Lloyd is Jeremy Lloyd; granting Mr. Ll oyd's 27 motion for summary judgment; denying Mr. Slayton's 35 motion for voluntary dismissal; dismissing this action with prejudice; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 02/09/2017. (rhm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
BRYAN EDWARD SLAYTON
REG # 11196-074
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 2:15-cv-00085-KGB-JJV

RIVERA, Warden,
FCC-Forrest City, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United
States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 31). Plaintiff Bryan Edward Slayton has not filed
timely objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations. In fact, he has made no timely
filing to which he refers as objections in response to the pending Proposed Findings and
Recommendations. Instead, Mr. Slayton filed a notice of rescission (Dkt. No. 35). The Court
construes Mr. Slayton’s notice of rescission as a motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Mr. Slayton cannot dismiss this action at this time without a
court order, as he filed his notice of dismissal after defendant Jeremy Lloyd filed a motion for
summary judgment (Dkt. No. 31). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) (providing that a plaintiff may
dismiss an action without a court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party
serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment”). Mr. Lloyd is the only remaining
defendant in this action. The Court will not grant Mr. Slayton’s request to dismiss this action
without prejudice, as the Court determines that this action should be dismissed with prejudice.
Therefore, Mr. Slayton’s motion for voluntary dismissal is denied (Dkt. No. 35).

After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and
Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's
findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 31).
It is therefore ordered that:
1.

The Clerk of Court alter the docket to reflect that Defendant “Lloyd” is “Jeremy

Lloyd.”
2.

Mr. Lloyd’s motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 27).

3.

Mr. Slayton’s motion for voluntary dismissal is denied (Dkt. No. 35).

4.

This action is dismissed with prejudice.

5.

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.
Dated this 9th day of February, 2017.

_______________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2