Jones v. Hobbs et al

Filing 193

ORDER re 192 Request to Clarify Order. The record reflects that on March 27, 2015, there being no timely objections filed by Plaintiff, the Court entered two orders adopting the magistrate judge's recommended partial disposition, 176 , and r ecommended disposition, 177 and entered judgment dismissed plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff on the same day filed a motion to extend time to file objections and he filed objections to the recommended disposition. Further, plaintiff filed a mot ion for a new trial or to amend or alter the judgment on April 8, 2015. In the Court's Order dated April 20, 2015, the Court granted the motion for extension of time to file objections concerning the medical defendants, considered the objections, reviewed the record de novo and denied the motion for new trial/alter or amend judgment, 191 . Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 5/6/2015. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION

DAVID JONES,
ADC # 93197
Plaintiff,
vs.
MEGAN BOND, ET AL.,
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

No. 5:12CV00456 SWW/JTR

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s request to clarify order. The record reflects that on
March 27, 2015, there being no timely objections filed by plaintiff, the Court entered two
orders adopting the magistrate judge’s recommended partial disposition [doc. 176] and
recommended disposition [doc. 177] and entered judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.
Document Nos. 18, 185, 186. On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion to extend time to file
objections to the partial disposition, which involved the so-called medical defendants (doc.
187) and he filed objections to the recommended disposition, which involved the so-called
security defendants. Doc. 188. On April 8, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial or
alternatively, to amend or alter judgment, complaining that the Court’s Orders adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommended dispositions were in error because they said plaintiff had
not filed objections when, in fact, he had mailed objections but they did not arrive before the
filing deadline of March 26, 2015. In the Order dated, April 20, 2015, the Court granted the
motion for extension of time to file objections concerning the medical defendants, considered

the objections, reviewed the record de novo, and denied the motion for new trial/alter or
amend judgment. Doc. 191.
DATED this 6th day of May, 2015.

/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2