Owens et al v. Hobbs et al
ORDER ADOPTING 47 the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition; granting 35 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing, without prejudice, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Straughn and Gooley due to a lack of exha ustion; denying as moot 32 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court certifies, that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 12/6/2012. (kdr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
LANCE MITCHELL OWENS,
JOYCE GOOLEY, Mail Room Supervisor;
and WILLIAM STRAUGHN, Warden;
Maximum Security Unit
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended 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
record in this case, the Court concludes 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.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry #35) is
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Straughn and Gooley are
DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, due to a lack of exhaustion.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry #32) is
DENIED, AS MOOT.
The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in
forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be
taken in good faith.
Dated this 6th day of December 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?