Henry v. Holiday et al
ORDER adopting the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris 42 ; defendant Carl L. Johnson's motion for summary judgment and his motion to adopt are granted 31 36 ; plaintiff's claims against Johnson are dismissed without prejudice; defendant Charles Holladay's motion for summary judgment 33 is granted and plaintiff's claims against Holladay are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 4/12/16. (tjb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
LITTLE ROCK DIVISION
ROY HENRY, JR.
NO: 4:15CV00140 SWW/PSH
CHARLES HOLLADAY et al
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Partial Recommended Disposition
submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris, and the objections filed.1 After
carefully considering the objections2 and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the
Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Partial 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:
Defendant Carl L. Johnson’s motion for summary judgment and his motion to adopt
(Doc. Nos. 31 & 36) are GRANTED, and plaintiff’s claims against Johnson are DISMISSED
Defendant Charles Holladay’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 33) is
GRANTED, and plaintiff’s claims against Holladay are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED this 12th day of April, 2016.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Motion for Reconsideration,” docket no. 43, which the Court
interprets as plaintiff’s objections to the proposed findings and recommended disposition.
Plaintiff appears to raise for the first time in this action a claim that he was denied his right to
practice his religion.
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?