Jones v. Payne et al
Filing
72
ORDER agreeing with 44 Partial Recommended Disposition, that the Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings should be denied; denying 42 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; 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 1/28/2025. (ldb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
RODNEY L. JONES
ADC #148884
v.
PLAINTIFF
No. 4:23-cv-00876-LPR-JJV
DEXTER PAYNE, et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
The Court has received a Partial Recommended Disposition (PRD) from United States
Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Doc. 44) and the Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 46). After a de novo
review of the PRD, along with careful consideration of the Objections and the entire case record,
the Court agrees that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings should be denied. But
the Court comes to this conclusion via a different route than the analysis in the PRD. The Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings violates Local Rule 7.2(a) because it is not accompanied by a
separate brief. I would, and do, deny the Motion on this basis alone—reserving comment on any
other potential basis of denial at this time.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 42) is DENIED. 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 28th day of January 2025.
_______________________________
LEE P. RUDOFSKY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?