Young et al v. Hurst et al

Filing 123

ORDER ADOPTING 118 Report and Recommendations; denying 122 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Guy B Young; finding the 120 Motion to Appoint Counsel filed by Guy B Young moot; and administratively closing this case. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 9/8/10. (bkp)

Download PDF
Young et al v. Hurst et al Doc. 123 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION GUY B. YOUNG, ADC #124069 v. MIKE HURST, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney. After a review of those proposed findings and recommendations, and the timely objections received thereto, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts them in their entirety. Further, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's June 7, 2010 Order dismissing Defendants FordScott, S. Vance, Rushing, Hawkins and Ed Adams. Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal reason to reconsider the Order. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this action is hereby ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Plaintiff may file a motion to reopen this action upon obtaining information concerning Defendant King's address, his ability to accept service, and to attend a trial in this matter. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket # 122) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket # 120) is MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of September, 2010. 5:09CV00027JMM/JTK PLAINTIFF ______________________________________ 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?