Wormley v. Baeosk et al

Filing 28

ORDER approving and adopting 27 Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects; granting 25 Motion to Dismiss; dismissing, without prejudice, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Baeosk; directing the Clerk to close this case; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order or the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 2/5/2024. (ldb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
BRYAN O’NEAL WORMLEY
#117888
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:23-CV-00579-LPR

BAEOSK, Deputy Officer,
Pulaski County Detention Center

DEFENDANT
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe.1 No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has
expired. After a de novo review of the RD, along with careful consideration of the case record,
the Court hereby approves and adopts the RD in its entirety as this Court’s findings and conclusions
in all respects.
Defendant Baeosk’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.2 Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant Baeosk are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of prosecution for each
reason set forth in the RD. The Clerk is directed to close this case. The Court certifies, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order or the accompanying
Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of February 2024.
________________________________
LEE P. RUDOFSKY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1
2

Doc. 27.

There is one small exception—although Defendant sought dismissal with prejudice, the Court adopts Judge Volpe’s
recommendation to dismiss this case without prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice seems too harsh a remedy in these
particular circumstances.