Clifton v. Wolfe et al

Filing 27

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
EASTERN DIVISION
CURTIS CLIFTON
ADC #650436
v.

PLAINTIFF

2:17CV00024-BRW

MARGO WOLFE, Parole Officer,
St. Francis County; et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

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
granted.
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
good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2017.

/s/ Billy Roy Wilson ______________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE