Owren v. Miller et al

Filing 27

ORDER adopting 5 Partial Recommendation and 25 Recommendation; granting 2 motion for summary judgment; dismissing without prejudice 2 complaint; certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from this Order and the accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith; and denying as moot 26 motion to stay scheduling order deadline. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 8/1/2022. (jbh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
BRADLEY DEAN OWREN
#137407
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 4:21-cv-00927-KGB

PHILLIP MILLER et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court are two Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United
States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. Nos. 5; 25).
In the November 17, 2021, Proposed Findings and Recommendations (“Partial
Recommendation”), Judge Volpe recommended dismissal without prejudice of all claims brought
by plaintiff Bradley Owren against defendant Clayton Edwards with the exception of Mr. Owren’s
due process claim against Mr. Edwards in Mr. Edwards’ individual capacity (Dkt. No. 5, at 3).
Judge Volpe also recommended dismissal without prejudice of all of Mr. Owren’s claims against
defendant Phillip Miller (Id.). Further, Judge Volpe recommended that this Court certify, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in
good faith (Id.).
In the March 29, 2022, Proposed Findings and Recommendations (“Recommendation”),
Judge Volpe recommended, as to the remaining claims, that the Court grant Mr. Edwards’ motion
for summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (Dkt. Nos. 16; 25). Judge
Volpe further recommended that the Court dismiss without prejudice Mr. Owren’s due process
claim against Mr. Edwards and certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma
pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith (Dkt. No. 25, at 7).

Mr. Owren did not respond to either Judge Volpe’s Partial Recommendation or
Recommendation, and the time for doing so has passed. After careful consideration of the Partial
Recommendation and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Partial Recommendation
and Recommendation should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this
Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. Nos. 5; 25). The Court grants Mr. Edwards’ motion for
summary judgment and dismisses without prejudice Mr. Owren’s complaint (Dkt. No. 2). The
Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from this Order and the accompanying
judgment would not be taken in good faith. As this Court dismisses this case, it denies as moot
Mr. Edward’s motion to stay scheduling order deadline (Dkt. No. 26).
It is so ordered this 1st day of August, 2022.

_____________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2