Kinney v. Holiday et al

Filing 37

ORDER concluding that the 28 Recommended Disposition should not be adopted as this Court's findings; adopting the 7 Partial Recommended Disposition as this Court's findings in its entirety; dismissing without prejudice Mr. Kinney' s claims against defendants in their official capacities and claims against defendant Holiday in his individual capacity; instructing the Clerk to mail to Mr. Kinney copies of all docket entries in this matter entered since on or after 12/5/2016 (Dkt. Nos. 15-36); and requesting that Judge Deere review Sealed Dkt. No. 29 to determine whether service upon defendant Huitt is appropriate in this matter. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/14/2017. (mef)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
RAYMOND J. KINNEY,
Reg. # 28979-009
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:16-cv-00716-KGB/JJV

CHARLES HOLIDAY,
Sheriff of Pulaski County; et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge Beth Deere (Dkt. No. 28) and the Partial Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No.
7). Plaintiff Raymond J. Kinney filed objections to the Recommended Disposition (Dkt. No. 33),
but he filed no objections to the Partial Recommended Disposition. His objections to the
Recommended Disposition were untimely filed, but this Court has considered those objections.
After careful consideration of the Recommended Disposition, the Partial Recommended
Disposition, and the objections, and after a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that
the Recommended Disposition should not be adopted as this Court’s findings (Dkt. No. 28) but
that the Partial Recommended Disposition should be adopted as this Court’s findings in its entirety
(Dkt. No. 7).
In regard to the Recommended Disposition, Mr. Kinney is correct in that he filed change
of address forms on November 29, 2016 (Dkt. No. 13) and February 8, 2017 (Dkt. No. 32),
explaining why he anticipated that his mailing address would change and advising the Court of his
whereabouts. As a result, after a de novo review of the record, the Court declines to dismiss
without prejudice Mr. Kinney’s case for the reasons cited by Judge Deere. Mr. Kinney may
proceed with his remaining claims.

In the Partial Recommended Disposition, Judge Deere recommends that Mr. Kinney’s
claims against defendants in their official capacities be dismissed without prejudice and that his
claims against defendant Holiday in his individual capacity be dismissed without prejudice (Dkt.
No. 7). For the reasons explained by Judge Deere, this Court adopts that Partial Recommended
Disposition and dismisses without prejudice Mr. Kinney’s claims against defendants in their
official capacities and claims against defendant Holiday in his individual capacity.
Further, as Mr. Kinney has indicated to the Court that he has received no filings in this
matter since December 5, 2016 (Dkt. No. 32), the Clerk is instructed to mail to Mr. Kinney copies
of all docket entries in this matter entered since on or after December 5, 2016 (Dkt. Nos. 15-36).
The Court also notes that, in a prior Order, the Court requested that defendants provide to
the Court an updated address for defendant Huitt, as a summons served on defendant Huitt was
returned as undeliverable. As Mr. Kinney is permitted to proceed with his remaining claims, the
Court requests that Judge Deere review Sealed Dkt. No. 29 to determine whether service upon
defendant Huitt is appropriate in this matter.
So ordered this the 14th day of July, 2017.
________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Court

2