Johnson v. Hughes et al
ORDER approving and adopting 89 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition; granting 84 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing Mr. Johnson's complaint without prejudice with respect to his claims against defendants Jose ph Hughes, Corizon Inc., and Crystal Sims; dismissing Mr. Johnson's complaint with prejudice with respect to his claims against defendants Marybeth Floyd and Jennifer Horn; and, certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/5/2012. (dmn)(Modified on 10/5/2012 to correct typographical error.)(dmn).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
CARLEST MATTHEWS JOHNSON
CASE NO. 5:12CV00042 BSM
JOSEPH HUGHES et al
The proposed findings and recommended disposition submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge H. David Young have been reviewed. After carefully considering the
objections filed by Plaintiff Carlest Matthews Johnson and making a de novo review of the
record in this case, it is concluded 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. Additionally, Johnson’s motion for subpoena [Doc. No.90] is denied as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 84] is GRANTED.
Mr. Johnson’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect
to his claims against defendants Joseph Hughes, Corizon Inc., and Crystal Sims.
Mr. Johnson’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with respect to
his claims against defendants Marybeth Floyd and Jennifer Horn.
The court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and
judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith.
DATED this 5th day of October 2012.
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?