Jackson v. Jones et al
ORDER adopting the Recommendations 48 submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray; defendant's 33 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, this case is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 6/7/16. (tjb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
MICHELLE DOREEN JACKSON,
CHARLES WOODY JONES,
Doctor, Pope County Jail
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge
J. Thomas Ray. No objections have been filed.1 After careful review, the Recommendation is
approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33)
is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Dated this 7th day of June, 2016.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On motion of plaintiff, the Court, by Order entered January 29, 2016 [doc.#50], granted
plaintiff a 90-day extension of time in which to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation. On May 2, 2016 (three days after the 90-day extension expired), plaintiff filed
a motion for another 90-day extension in which to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation. In her motion, plaintiff stated she “need a extension due to medical reason for
90 days ....” Because plaintiff did not adequately explain the “medical reason” that was preventing
her from filing her objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation but yet did not prevent
her from filing a motion for an extension of time to file her objections, the Court, rather than a 90day extension, entered an Order [doc.#52] on May 5, 2016, granting plaintiff until June 3, 2016–35
extra days–in which to file her objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. That date has
come and gone with no objections being filed.
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?