Doering v. Moore et al
Filing
47
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING 45 46 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED PARTIAL DISPOSITIONS; granting without prejudice 33 Defendant Wendy Kelley's motion for summary judgment; granting without prejudice 30 Defendant Annette Esaw's m otion for summary judgment; dismissing Defendant Troy Moore without prejudice due to lack of service; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 10/14/2014. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
ALAN L. DOERING
ADC #106115
v.
PLAINTIFF
Case No. 5:13-cv-00149 KGB/JTR
DR. MOORE, Cummins Unit,
Arkansas Department of Correction, et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Dispositions
submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Dkt. Nos. 45, 46). No objections
have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed. After careful review, the Court
concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Dispositions 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.
30).
Defendant Wendy Kelley’s motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No.
Defendant Annette Esaw’s motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 33).
Plaintiff Alan L. Doering’s claims against Ms. Kelley and Ms. Esaw are dismissed without
prejudice due to lack of exhaustion.
2.
Defendant Troy Moore is dismissed without prejudice from this action due to lack
of service.
3.
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.
SO ORDERED this the 14th day of October, 2014.
______________________________
Kristine G. Baker
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?