Cooper v. Courtney et al

Filing 7

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
VINCENT COOPER
ADC # 114449

v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 5:14-cv-123-DPM-JJV

TAMMY COURTNEY, COl, Varner Supermax
Unit, ADC; JOHN A THAN MARTIN, Correctional
Officer, Varner Unit, ADC; and ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

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).

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. (I
United States District Judge

-2-