Clifton v. Wolfe et al
ORDER Adopting 25 Proposed Findings and Recommendations. Defendant's 22 Motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's 2 Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Dismissal of Plaintiff's C omplaint constitutes a "strike" within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). I certify that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 6/15/2017. (mcz)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
MARGO WOLFE, Parole Officer,
St. Francis County; et al.
I have reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and Plaintiff=s objections. After carefully
considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record, I approve and adopt the
Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in their entirety.
Accordingly, Defendant Wolfe’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 22) is GRANTED. The
rationale advanced by Defendant Wolfe also applies to Defendant Barnes. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint constitutes a “strike” within the meaning of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this
Order adopting the Recommendations, and the accompanying Judgment, would not be taken in
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2017.
/s/ Billy Roy Wilson ______________
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?