Stewart et al v. Conrad et al
ORDER denying 140 Motion for Reconsideration re 137 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations. The Court grants plaintiff's motion for copies of his filed pleadings. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of ECF Nos. 125, 126, 127, 135, 136, 140 and 141 to plaintiff. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 5/1/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
RHONDA KAY STEWART, et al
SHERRY A. CONRAD, et al
On March 19, 2012, United States Magistrate H. David Young filed his Report and
Recommendations in this case. Judge Young recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily
dismiss his claims against certain defendants be granted. Judge Young also recommended that
Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice in all other respects for failure to introduce
sufficient evidence to create a fact issue to be submitted to a jury. Plaintiff requested additional time
to file Objections to Judge Young’s report which was granted. On April 23, 2012, the Court received
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Copies. The Court reviewed the record de
novo including in the review the motions filed by the Plaintiff. The Court adopted Judge Young’s
Recommendations on April 24, 2012, denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for
Copies. On April 30, 2012, the Court received another Motion for Reconsideration from the Plaintiff
and an affidavit.
Upon reconsideration, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for copies of his filed pleadings
(ECF No. 125, 126, 127, 135, 136, 140, and 141). The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of these
pleadings to the Plaintiff. The Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 14) is DENIED for the same
reasons set forth in the Court’s April 24, 2012 Order (ECF No. 137).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2012.
James M. Moody
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?