Garlock v. Lockey et al
Filing
49
ORDER adopting in their entirety 48 the proposed findings and recommendations; granting 21 defendants Lockey, Loveday, Cunningham, and Futrell's motion for summary judgment; dismissing, without prejudice, Garlock's claims against defend ants Lockey, Loveday, Cunningham, and Futrell, for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies; granting 33 defendant USA's motion for summary judgment; dismissing, with prejudice, Garlock's Federal Torts Claims Act claim against the USA; and certifying that an in forma pauperis would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 9/28/2017. (kdr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
EDWARD GARLOCK
Reg. #25750-045
v.
PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 2:16-CV-00148 BSM
VIRGINIA LOCKEY, R.N.,
Forrest City Medium FCI; et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
The proposed findings and recommendations [Doc. No. 48] submitted by United
States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe have been received. Plaintiff Edward Garlock has
not submitted objections. After a careful review of the record, the proposed findings and
recommendations are adopted in their entirety.
Accordingly, defendants Lockey,
Loveday, Cunningham, and Futrell’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 21] is
granted; Garlock’s claims against defendants Lockey, Loveday, Cunningham, and Futrell
are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies;
defendant United States of America’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 33] is
granted; and Garlock’s Federal Torts Claims Act claim against the United States of
America is dismissed with prejudice.
Furthermore, it is certified that an in forma
pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of September 2017.
_________________________________
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?