Baker v. Payne et al
Filing
17
ORDER approving and adopting 15 Partial Recommended Disposition as its findings and conclusions in all respects; denying 10 Motion for Preliminary; Injunction; 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 1/29/2025. (ldb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
DANIEL RAY BAKER
ADC #600691
v.
PLAINTIFF
No. 4:24-cv-00886-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. 15) and the Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 16). After a de novo
review of the PRD, along with careful consideration of the Objections and the entire case record,
the Court hereby approves and adopts the PRD as its findings and conclusions in all respects.1
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 10) 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 29th day of January 2025.
_______________________________
LEE P. RUDOFSKY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
The Court notes that the information discussed in the PRD shows more than Plaintiff’s failure to prove that
irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction is more likely than not. It also shows Plaintiff’s failure to
prove a likelihood of success on the merits—or even a fair chance at the same. The latter failure makes obtaining a
preliminary injunction impossible in all but the most unique of circumstances (which are not present here).
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?