Golden v. Frye et al

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING 31 Report and Recommendations, denying 29 Motion to Take Deposition and dismissing this action, which counts as a "strike," and certifying that an ifp appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 10/27/09. (bkp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION RICKEY GOLDEN ADC # 136148 V. 5:09-cv-00088-JMM-JJV

PLAINTIFF

CAROL FRYE, Secretary, Arkansas Department of Correction, CLINTON HALL, Major, Diagnostic Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction; KEITH WADDLE, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Arkansas Department of Correction; JAMES GIBSON, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Arkansas Department of Correction; and LARRY NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction ORDER

DEFENDANTS

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and the objections. After carefully considering Plaintiff's objections and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. 2. This action is DISMISSED and all pending motions are DENIED as moot; Dismissal of this action shall count as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);1 and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) provides that: "In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action under this section if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of 1
1

3.

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from any Order adopting these recommendations would not be taken in good faith. DATED this 27th day of October, 2009.

_____________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted . . . . 2