Jones v. Meinzer et al
Filing
131
ORDER adopting 126 proposed findings and recommendations in their entirety. Plaintiff Jones prevails on his RLUIPA Complaint against Defendants with respect to his request for a religious exemption to the ADC grooming policy, and is entitled to we ar a one-fourth inch beard. Plaintiff's request to amend his injunctive relief is denied, 58 . Plaintiff's request for expungement of his disciplinary history is denied. Plaintiff's motion to file a second amended complaint is denied, 117 . Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is denied as moot, 118 . An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Order. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 11/10/2015. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
LARRY WAYNE JONES,
ADC #70147
v.
PLAINTIFF
No. 5:12CV00117-JLH-JTK
CURTIS MEINZER et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney.
After a review of those proposed findings and
recommendations, and the timely objections received thereto, as well as a de novo review of the
record, the Court adopts them in their entirety. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff Jones prevails on his RLUIPA Complaint against Defendants with respect
to his request for a religious exemption to the ADC grooming policy, and is entitled to wear a onefourth inch beard.
2.
Plaintiff’s request to amend his injunctive relief is DENIED. Document #58.
3.
Plaintiff’s request for expungement of his disciplinary history is DENIED.
4.
Plaintiff’s Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. Document
5.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED as moot. Document #118.
#117.
An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of November, 2015.
________________________________
J. LEON HOLMES
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?