McDaniel v. Montgomery et al
ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; case is dismissed with prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; this dismissal counts as a "strike" as defined by 28 USC 1915(g); the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3), that an ifp appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 7/24/09. (mkf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION CALVIN RAY MCDANIEL V. 3:09CV00099-WRW/JTR PLAINTIFF
THOMAS G. MONTGOMERY, Crittenden County Public Defender; and BART E. ZIEGENHORN, Crittenden County Public Defender ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. No objections have been filed. After careful review, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended 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. Pursuant to the screening function mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this case is
DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. 1915(g). 3. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis Dismissal of this action CONSTITUTES a "strike," as defined by 28 U.S.C. §
appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 24th day of July, 2009.
/s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 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?