Morrow v. Kelley et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING 41 Partial Report and Recommendations; therefore, defts' 32 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 12/11/13. (vjt)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION BERRY MORROW, ADC #143825 V. PLAINTIFF 5:13CV0098 SWW/JTR DAVID KELLEY, Lieutenant, Cummins Unit, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. No objections have been filed. After careful review, 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 all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 2. Plaintiff's failure to protect, retaliation, and corrective inaction claims against Defendants Boykin, Reed, Holstead, Ashcraft, Carter, Burgess, Kelley, May, and Lay are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to a lack of exhaustion. 3. Plaintiff may PROCEED with his excessive force claim against Defendant Kelley and his free exercise of religion claim against Defendants Holstead, Carter, and Railford, those claims having been exhausted.1 4. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Dated this 11th day of December 2013. /s/Susan Webber Wright UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 This, of course, is not a denial of summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendant Kelley and his free exercise of religion claim against Defendants Holstead, Carter, and Railford.

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?