McClanton v. Brewing et al

Filing 33

ORDER adopting 4 and 24 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety. The Court orders that defendant Breving be dismissed without prejudice as a defendant in this case for failure to state a claim against him upon which relief may be granted. The Court denies Ms. Bland's 21 motion to vacate Mr. McClanton's in forma pauperis status. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 12/17/2015. (ljb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION RODNEY WILSON MCCLANTON, ADC #108785 v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 5:15-cv-00230-KGB/JTK ROBERT BREVING, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court are two Proposed Findings and Recommendations from United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. Nos. 4, 24). Magistrate Kearney first recommends dismissal of defendant Robert Brewing (Dkt. No. 4). After a review of those Proposed Findings and Recommendations, and the timely objections received thereto (Dkt. No. 6), as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety. Accordingly, the Court orders that defendant Breving be dismissed without prejudice as a defendant in this case for failure to state a claim against him upon which relief may be granted. Magistrate Kearney’s second Proposed Findings and Recommendations addresses defendant Estella Bland’s motion to vacate Mr. McClanton’s in forma pauperis status (Dkt. No. 24). Ms. Bland has not filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. After a review of the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, the Court adopts them in their entirety. The Court denies Ms. Bland’s motion to vacate Mr. McClanton’s in forma pauperis status. It is so ordered on this 17th day of December, 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?