Rider v. Starr et al
ORDER approving and adopting 88 Partial Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; dismissing Lester Eugene Rider's claims against defendants Ryan Gordon, Lonnie Paranuk, James Thomas, Daniel Potter, Billy Stinnett, Lon Watson, Timothy Thomas, Garland Alexander, Courtney McClina-Lathan, Nada D'Avignon, Winston Middleton, Laurel Hooks, Crystal Bell, and Sheldon Childress without prejudice; and granting 76 motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 01/12/2016. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
LESTER EUGENE RIDER
ADC # 152530
Case No. 5:13-cv-00202 KGB-BD
RITA STARR, et al.
The Court has received a Partial Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) filed
by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere (Dkt. No. 88). Mr. Rider filed a motion for extension of time to
file objections to the Recommendation, and the Court granted that motion (Dkt. No. 89). Mr.
Rider then filed objections to the Recommendation (Dkt. No. 92). After careful review of the
Recommendation, Mr. Rider’s timely objections, and a de novo review of the record, the Court
concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its
entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects.
Accordingly, plaintiff Lester Eugene Rider’s claims against defendants Ryan Gordon,
Lonnie Paranuk, James Thomas, Daniel Potter, Billy Stinnett, Lon Watson, Timothy Thomas,
Garland Alexander, Courtney McClina-Latham, Nada D’Avignon, Winston Middleton, Laurel
Hooks, Crystal Bell, and Sheldon Childress are dismissed without prejudice, based on Mr.
Rider’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies against these defendants, as required by
federal law. The above-named defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of January, 2016.
KRISTINE G. BAKER
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?