Wormley v. Baeosk et al
ORDER approving and adopting 8 PRD in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects; allowing Plaintiff to proceed with his free speech and retaliation claims against Defendant Baeosk in his personal capacity only; dism issing without prejudice all other claims in the Complaint; dismissing without prejudice Defendant Murphy; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 11/15/2023. (csf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
BRYAN O’NEAL WORMLEY
BAEOSK, et al.
The Court has reviewed the Partial Recommended Disposition (PRD) submitted by United
States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe.1 No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has
expired. After a de novo review of the PRD and careful consideration of the case record, the Court
hereby approves and adopts the PRD in its entirety as this Court’s findings and conclusions in all
Accordingly, Plaintiff may proceed with his free speech and retaliation claims against
Defendant Baeosk in his personal capacity only.3
All other claims in the Complaint are
DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendant Murphy is DISMISSED without prejudice as a
Defendant in this case. The Court certifies, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of November 2023.
LEE P. RUDOFSKY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Because of the availability of post-deprivation remedies, the Court need not address the legal distinction between
negligent and intentional deprivations of property. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986).
This is not to suggest that an adversarial motion to dismiss would be inappropriate. Such a motion might change the
Court’s view of the viability of such claims.
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?