Terry v. Eley

Filing 7

ORDER approving and adopting 4 Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects; dismissing, without prejudice, 2 Complaint; denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; direc ting Plaintiff to submit the statutory filing and administrative fee of $402.00 to the Clerk within 15 days of the date of this Order together with a motion to reopen the case, if he wishes to continue this case; certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order or the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith; denying 5 IFP Motion; and denying as moot 6 Motion to Amend Relief. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 11/13/2023. (ldb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DELTA DIVISION
JARELL DAVIS TERRY
ADC #149998
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No: 2:23-CV-00130-LPR

ELEY, Mental Health Advisor,
EARU Max/Wellpath, ADC

DEFENDANT
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney.1 No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so
has expired. After a de novo review of the RD and careful consideration of the case record, the
Court hereby approves and adopts the RD in its entirety as this Court’s findings and conclusions
in all respects.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is DENIED.2 If Plaintiff wishes to
continue this case, he is required to submit the statutory filing and administrative fee of $402.00
to the Clerk, noting the above case style and number, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this
Order, together with a motion to reopen the case. Upon receipt of the motion and full payment,
the case will be reopened. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma
pauperis appeal from this Order or the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.

1

Doc. 4.

2

After Judge Kearney issued his RD, Plaintiff filed a second IFP Motion (Doc. 5). That Motion is denied for the same
reasons discussed in Judge Kearney’s RD concerning the first IFP Motion. See Doc. 4 at 3–4. Additionally, Plaintiff’s
Motion to Amend Relief (Doc. 6) is denied as moot based on this Order of dismissal.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of November 2023.

LEE P. RUDOFSKY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2