Rider v. Starr et al
ORDER ADOPTING 95 and 100 Partial Recommended Dispositions. Mr. Rider's 93 Motion to amend his complaint is denied. Defendant Rita Starr's 96 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and Mr. Rider's claims against Ms. Starr are dismissed with prejudice. The Court previously dismissed without prejudice by separate Order 90 102 , Mr. Rider's claims against all other defendants named in this action. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 9/14/2016. (mcz)
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
The Court has received two Partial Recommended Dispositions (“Recommendations”)
filed by United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere (Dkt. Nos. 95, 100). Plaintiff Lester Eugene
Rider filed objections to Judge Deere’s first Recommendation (Dkt. Nos. 99). Then, Mr. Rider
filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to Judge Deere’s second Recommendation
(Dkt. Nos. 101), which the Court granted (Dkt. No. 103). Mr. Rider then filed objections to the
second Recommendation (Dkt. No. 104).
After careful review of the Recommendations, Mr. Rider’s timely objections, and a de
novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommendations should both be, and
hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects.
Accordingly, Mr. Rider’s motion to amend his complaint is denied (Dkt. No. 93),
defendant Rita Starr’s motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 96), and Mr. Rider’s
claims against Ms. Starr are dismissed with prejudice. This Court previously dismissed without
prejudice by separate Order Mr. Rider’s claims against all other defendants named in this action
(Dkt. Nos. 90, 102).
So ordered this 14th day of September, 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?