Ashley v. Robinson et al

Filing 64

ORDER granting defts' 57 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/8/11. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

RICKY ASHLEY

v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:10-cv-586-DPM

JEREMY HAMMONS, Detective;

BILL JACKSON, Detective;

LANCE SMITH, Deputy; and

BRUCE PENNINGTON, Sheriff

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Ricky Ashley has not-responded to Defendants' motion for summary
judgment, which was supported by a statement of undisputed facts,
affidavits, and an admirably short brief on the law. Ashley has not met proof
with proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 u.s. 317,324 (1986). Though the Court
disagrees with the fall-back argument from Rooker-Feldman, for the other
reasons argued in Defendants' brief, Ashley's complaint fails as a matter of
law. Motion, Document No. 57, granted. An in forma pauperis appeal of this
order and the accompanying judgment would not be in good faith.
U.s.C.A. § 1915(a)(3) (West 2006).

28

So Ordered.

-2­