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)

Download PDF
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

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?