Easter/Muhammad v. Rowson et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 ; denying 4 Motion for Order; and dismissing the complaint without prejudice. The Court certifies that an ifp appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/23/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CURTIS RAY EASTER/MUHAMMAD
ADC # 93325
J. ROWSON; V. JONES; PEREZ; C. NEAL;
FOXS; S. MILLIGAN; C. JANUES; ROLAND
ANDERSON; JACQUELINE CARSWELL;
JANE MEDILA; FRAKS; WILLIAM
STRAUGHN; STEVE OUTLAW; SIMMONS;
LINDA D. ERWIN; ARTIS RAY HOBBS;
LARRY D. MAY; MARVIN EVANS JR.;
DINA TYLER; TIFFANEY COMPTON;
DEAN; FEEBE; PAMELA C. CONNER;
and GRANT HARRIS
No one has objected to Magistrate Judge Young's proposed findings and
recommendations, Document No. 10. The Court has therefore reviewed Judge
Young's proposal for clear errors of fact on the face of the record, FED. R. ClV.
P. 72(b) (advisory committee notes to 1983 addition), and for legal error.
Finding neither, the Court adopts the proposal in its entirety.
The Court dismisses Easter/Muhammad's complaint without prejudice
because he has failed to pay the filing fee, failed to comply with Local Rule
5.5(c)(2), and failed to respond to Judge Young's earlier order. The Court also
denies Easter/Muhammad's pending motion for an order, Document No.4.
Finally, the Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal of this order and
the accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. §
D.P. Marshall 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?