Davis v. Hobbs et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying 44 Motion to Amend. Unopposed recommendation 43 adopted. 36 Motion for Preliminary Injunction is denied. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/31/2014. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION RICHARD ALAN DAVIS ADC # 89568 v. PLAINTIFF No. 5:13-cv-351-DPM-JJV CURTIS MEINZER, Deputy Warden, Varner, ADC DEFENDANT ORDER 1. Davis sued some prison officials for allegedly retaliating against him for filing a ยง 1983 claim. NQ 4. He moves, opposed, to supplement his complaint to add some new defendants and a claim that some officials retaliated against him for filing grievances. The motion to amend, NQ 44, is denied. Dispositive motions are due in a month; the new claims are unrelated to the original claims, so more discovery would be needed and the Scheduling Order would be derailed. There's also, as Meinzer points out, an exhaustion tangle as to the new claims. 2. Unopposedrecommendation,Ng43,adopted. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(3). Motion for preliminary injunction, NQ 36, denied. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. (/ 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?