Owens et al v. Hobbs et al
ORDER ADOPTING 5 PARTIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in their entirety; therefore, pltf Owens may proceed with his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims against defts Gooley, Outlaw, Straughn, Erwin, Conner, and D oes; all other pltfs, claims and defts are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve summons, complaint, and this Order on defts Gooley, Outlaw, Straughn, Erwin, and Conner without prepayment of fees and costs; pltf is directed to file within 90 days of the entry of this Order a Motion for Service containing the full names of and service addresses for the Doe defts. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 6/14/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
LANCE MITCHELL OWENS,
ADC #610855, et al.
ARTIS RAY HOBBS, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction, et al.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial
Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed
objections. After carefully considering these documents and making a de novo review
of the relevant portion of the record, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court
concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition should
be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Pursuant to the screening function mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
Plaintiff Owens may PROCEED with his First Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment procedural due process claims against Defendants Gooley, Outlaw,
Straughn, Erwin, Conner, and Does.
All other Plaintiffs, claims, and Defendants are DISMISSED, WITHOUT
The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in
forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The Clerk is directed to prepare a summons for Defendants Gooley,
Outlaw, Straughn, Erwin, and Conner, and the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve the
summons, Complaint, and this Order on them through the ADC Compliance Division
without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor.1
Plaintiff must, within ninety days of the entry of this Order, file a
Motion for Service containing the full names of and service addresses for the Doe
Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to timely and properly do so, the Doe
Defendants will be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, due to a lack of
service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).2
If any of the Defendants are no longer ADC employees, the ADC Compliance Office
shall file, with the return of unexecuted service, a SEALED Statement providing the last
known private mailing address for the unserved Defendant.
In their objections, separate plaintiffs state, among other things, that they did not
receive document entries No. 3 and 4 and that “we have no knowledge of its content or
relevance. Again denied participation.” The Court informs separate plaintiffs that document
entry No. 3 is a notice of change of address from separate plaintiff Lance Mitchell Owens
and that document entry No. 4 is a certificate of mailing by the Clerk regarding a notice of
docket correction stating that the docket text was modified to correct the filing fee amount
to $350.00. These document entries have no relevance to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed
Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition or to separate Plaintiff’s objections.
Dated this 14th day of June 2012.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
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?