Waller v. Corizon Inc et al

Filing 73

ORDER approving and adopting in their entirety in all respects 71 and 72 partial recommended disposition; granting 65 motion for summary judgment; and considering frivolous and not in good faith an in forma pauperis appeal. Plaintiff's c laims against Corizon and Nance are dismissed with prejudice and Corizon and Nance are removed as party defendants. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and for failure to respond to the court's order. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 12/24/2014. (ljb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION KENNETH L. WALLER v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO: 5:13CV00296 BSM CORIZON LLC et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The partial recommended disposition and proposed findings and recommended disposition (“recommendations”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young have been received. No objections have been filed. After careful consideration, it is concluded that the recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. The motion for summary judgment filed by Corizon LLC and Melvin Nance [Doc. No. 65] is granted, plaintiff’s claims against Corizon and Nance are dismissed with prejudice, and Corizon and Nance are removed as party defendants. 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee, failure to comply with Local Rule 5.5(c)(2), and for failure to respond to the court’s order. 3. It is further certified that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith. DATED this 24th day of December 2014. _ 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?