Alexander/Ryahim v. Hobbs et al

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28 denying 23 Motion for Declaratory Judgment, Motion for Relief Jr, and 22 Motion to Compel filed by Charles E Alexander/Ryahim, Jr. The Clerk is directed to correct the docket to reflect that Brownlee is still a party to this action, as the Court did not dismiss plaintiff's retaliation claim against deft Brownlee. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 10/6/11. (kpr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION CHARLES E. ALEXANDERjRYAHIM JR. ADC# 111057 v. PLAINTIFF No.5:11-cv-133-DPM-BD RAY HOBBS, WILLIAM STRAUGHN, ANDRAE CAMPBELL, BROWNLEE, RANDALL MANUS, CRYSTAL WOODS, and VANITA KING DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Beth Deere's Partial Recommended Disposition, Document No. 28. No one has objected. Having reviewed the proposal for clear errors of fact on the face of the record, FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) (advisory committee notes to 1983 addition), and for legal error, the Court adopts the proposal as its own. Alexander/Ryahim's motion to compel and motion for injunction and declaratory judgment, Document Nos. 22 & 23, are denied. The Court specifically endorses and echoes Magistrate Judge Deere's caution to Alexander/Ryahim to refrain from attacking the integrity of counselor members of this Court. To clarify the record, Judge Deere's earlier Partial Recommended Disposition, Document No.9, and this Court's Order adopting the recommendation, Document No. 15, dismissed Alexander/Ryahim's claim against Defendant Brownlee for "violation of usage of an unconstitutional parole board through discriminatory acts." Document No.1, at 4. The Court did not, however, dismiss Alexander/Ryahim's retaliation claim against Defendant Brownlee. Document No.9, at 2. The Clerk is directed to correct the docket to reflect that Brownlee is still a party to this action. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge -2­

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?