Scott v. Watson et al
ORDER ADOPTING 3 Proposed Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff's 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff's 2 Complaint against Defendants is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 6/23/2015. (mcz)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
RANDY WATSON, et al.,
The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney. After a review of those proposed findings and
recommendations, and the timely objections received thereto, as well as a de novo review of the
record, the Court adopts them in their entirety. In his objections, Plaintiff contends that he was
following the Court’s orders by filing this action. Plaintiff previously filed Case 5:15CV00174 JM
against eighteen defendants, including all of the defendants named in the instant case. United States
Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe allowed Plaintiff to amend his complaint. Judge Volpe explained that
Plaintiff should restrict his complaint to a single transaction or incident against only the defendants
involved in that incident or file a complaint against each defendant and state only those allegations
that pertain to that defendant. In the instant action, Plaintiff has sued fifteen defendants. The facts
of the case are the same exact facts which Plaintiff filed originally in Case 5:15CV00174. Plaintiff
has not limited his complaint to a single occurrence or a single defendant.. Accordingly,
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED without
Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants is DISMISSED without prejudice, as
An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of June, 2015.
JAMES M. MOODY, JR.
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?