Brazell v. Ruh et al
ORDER approving and adopting 44 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; directing the Clerk of Court to alter the docket to reflect defendants' proper names; granting 40 motion for summary judgment; dismissing Plaintiff's 2 complaint without prejudice; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 05/21/2015. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
MICHAEL BRAZELL, Jr.
Case No. 5:14-cv-00238-KGB-JJV
A. RUH, Lieutenant, Maximum
Security Unit; et al.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 44). No objections have been filed, and
the time for filing objections has passed. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that
the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted
in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects.
It is therefore ordered that:
The Clerk of Court alter the docket to reflect that defendant “A. Ruh” is properly
“Andrew Ruh,” that “C. Strickland” is “Charles Strickland,” that “R. Owens” is “Ricky Owens,”
that “C. Lowery” is “Corey Lowery,” that “W. Straughn” is “William Straughn,” that “S.
Outlaw” is “Steve Outlaw,” and that “M. Williams” is “Maurice Williams.”
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 40).
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies (Dkt. No. 2).
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis
appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.
SO ORDERED this the 21st day of May, 2015.
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?