Davis v. Spencer et al

Filing 54

ORDER approving and adopting 49 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respect; granting 50 motion for extension of time; granting 23 motion for partial summary judgment; dismissing without prejudice Mr. Davis's claims against defendants Banister, Kelley, Naylor, and Taylor; and denying Mr. Davis's 3 motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 01/04/2016. (rhm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION RICHARD ALAN DAVIS ADC #89568 v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 5:15-cv-00105 KGB/PSH TONDA L. SPENCER, et al DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, including a partial recommended disposition, submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris (Dkt. No. 49), plaintiff Richard Alan Davis’s objections (Dkt. No. 51), and Mr. Davis’s motion to extend time to file objections (Dkt. No. 50). For good cause show, Mr. Davis’s motion to extend time is granted (Dkt. No. 50). The Court considers his objections timely filed. The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations and Mr. Davis’s objections and has made a de novo review of the record in this case. 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: 1. The motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendants Terrie L. Banister, Wendy Kelley, Raymond Naylor, and Lorie A. Taylor is granted (Dkt. No. 23), and the Court dismisses without prejudice Mr. Davis’s claims against defendants Banister, Kelley, Naylor, and Taylor. 2. Mr. Davis’s motion for summary judgment is denied (Dkt. No. 30). SO ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2016. ____________________________________ 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?