Holloway v. Norris et al
ORDER adopting in part the 14 Partial Report and Recommendations. Holloway's claims against Norris, Hobbs, May, Burl, and Andrews are dismissed without prejudice. Holloway's claim that Harmon failed to respond in a timely fashion to hi s disciplinary appeals is dismissed with prejudice. Holloway's discrimination claim deserves further consideration, and the Court requests Judge Deere to revisit this claim, including whether he should be allowed to amend his complaint. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/29/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
ADC # 111757
LARRY NORRIS; RAY HOBBS; LARRY
MAY; GREG HARMON; DANNY BURL;
TODD BALL; STEVE OUTLAW; JEREMY
ANDREWS; MOSES JACKSON; P. GREEN;
VICKEY WESTBROOK; and A. MCKINNEY
recommended disposition. Document No. 29. Having performed a de novo
review, the Court adopts in part the partial recommended disposition,
Document No. 14, and remands in part for further consideration of one claim.
Holloway's claims against Norris, Hobbs, May, Burl, and Andrews are
dismissed without prejudice. And Holloway's claim that Harmon failed to
respond in a timely fashion to his disciplinary appeals is dismissed with
But the Court is uneasy about dismissing Holloway's
discrimination claim at the screening stage, particularly in light of his
objections and supporting affidavits-papers Judge Deere never saw. The
Court expresses no opinion on the merits of this claim. It does, however,
deserve further consideration. The Court therefore requests Judge Deere to
revisit Holloway's discrimination claim, including whether he should be
allowed to amend his complaint.
D.P. Marsnall Jr.
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?