Cooper v. Courtney et al
ORDER adopting 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendations as modified. Cooper's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim at this point. No strike is assessed. The 5 Motion to Amend is denied as futile. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/14/2014. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
ADC # 114449
TAMMY COURTNEY, COl, Varner Supermax
Unit, ADC; JOHN A THAN MARTIN, Correctional
Officer, Varner Unit, ADC; and ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
Cooper has filed a motion to amend his complaint, which the Court
construes as an objection to Judge Volpe's Proposed Findings and
Recommendation, NQ 4. On de novo review, FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court
adopts the proposal as modified. Cooper's possible remedy against Courtney
and Martin for allegedly stealing and destroying some of Cooper's things lies
in a claim made to the Arkansas State Claims Commission. Hudson v. Palmer,
468 U.S. 517,533 (1984); Willis Smith and Co., Inc. v. Arkansas, 548 F.3d 638,640
(8th Cir. 2008). Cooper's complaint is therefore dismissed without prejudice
for failure to state a claim at this point. No strike is assessed. E.g., Owens v.
Isaac, 487 F.3d 561,563 (8th Cir. 2007)(per curiam). The motion to amend, NQ 5,
is denied as futile. Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 850-51 (8th Cir. 2010).
D.P. Marshall Jr. (I
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?