Smith v. Johnson et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as follow: Smith's failure to protect claims against Boltinghouse and Minor are dismissed without prejudice because he could fill the gap about their involvement by amendment; his potential conditions of confinement claim is dismissed without prejudice for the same reason; the legal defects in Smith's false-disciplinary and due-process claims cannot be fixed by amendment, and those claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice.Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/21/2012. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION JAMES EDWARD SMITH ADC#103093 v. PLAINTIFF No. 5:12-cv-409-DPM-HDY SAMMY D. JOHNSON, CO-I, Pine Bluff Unit, ADC; T. DOBBS, Varner Unit, ADC; DOUGLAS E. BOULTINGHOUSE, Lt., Varner Unit, ADC; and JUSTINE M. MINOR, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC DEFENDANTS ORDER No one has objected to Magistrate Judge H. David Young's Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Document No. 4. Having reviewed for clear errors of fact on the face of the record, FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) (Advisory Committee Notes to 1983 Addition), and for legal error, the Court adopts the proposal as modified: Smith's failure-to-protect claims against Boultinghouse and Minor are dismissed without prejudice because he could fill the gap about their involvement by amendment; his potential conditions-ofconfinement claim is dismissed without prejudice for the same reason; the legal defects in Smith's false-disciplinary and due-process claims cannot be fixed by amendment, and those claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge -2-

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?