Johnson v. Boyd et al

Filing 100

ORDER ADOPTING PARTIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 96 of U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 76 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART, such that Plaintiff shall PROCEED with his failure to protect & free exercise of religion claims against Defendants in their individual capacities only; and all other claims are DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 12/15/09. (jct)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION JONATHON B. JOHNSON ADC #140542 V. 3:08CV00084 SWW/JTR DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed objections. After carefully considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry #76) is GRANTED IN PLAINTIFF ZANE BOYD, Administrator, Crittenden County Detention Center, et al. PART, and DENIED IN PART, such that: (a) Plaintiff shall PROCEED with his failure to protect and free exercise of religion claims against Defendants in their individual capacities only; and (b) all other claims are DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. 2. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), than an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 15th day of December, 2009. /s/Susan Webber Wright 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?