Marshall v. Walker et al

Filing 64

ORDER approving and adopting the proposed findings and recommended partial disposition; granting in part 26 and 30 Defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to Marshall's claim for injunctive relief in the form of release from the beh avioral modification program, with respect to specific incidents which occurred prior to 9/12/08; and denying 26 and 30 with respect to Marshall's claims for denial of due process, retaliation, equal protection, and unconstitutional program. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 7/16/12. (hph)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION CALVIN LEE MARSHALL, ADC #90207 v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 5:11CV00239 BSM/JTK REVONNA WALKER, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The proposed findings and recommended partial disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney and the filed objections have been reviewed. After carefully considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record, it is concluded that the proposed findings and recommended partial disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ motions to dismiss [Doc. Nos. 26, 30] be GRANTED IN PART, with respect to Marshall’s claim for injunctive relief in the form of release from the behavioral modification program. 2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss [Doc. Nos. 26, 30] be GRANTED IN PART, with respect to specific incidents which occurred prior to September 12, 2008. 3. Defendants’ motions to dismiss [Doc. Nos. 26, 30] be DENIED, with respect to Marshall’s claims for denial of due process, retaliation, equal protection, and unconstitutional program. Dated this 16th day of July 2012. ________________________________ 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?