Martin v. Graydon et al

Filing 7

ORDER approving and adopting 5 proposed findings and recommended disposition in all respects; denying 1 motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order or the accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith; and denying as moot 3 4 motions. If Martin wishes to reopen this case, he must file a motion to reopen along with the $400 filing and administrative fees to the clerk of the court, referring to the above case number, within 30 days of entry of this order. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 11/23/2015. (rhm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION LAWRENCE MARTIN ADC #106491 v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 5:15CV00331 BSM GRAYDON et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The proposed findings and recommended disposition (“RD”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris and plaintiff Lawrence Martin’s objections thereto have been reviewed. After careful consideration of these documents and a de novo review of the record, the RD are hereby approved and adopted in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Martin’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. 1] is denied and his complaint is dismissed without prejudice. If Martin wishes to reopen this case, he must file a motion to reopen along with the $400 filing and administrative fees to the clerk of the court, referring to the above case number, within thirty days of entry of this order. 2. It is certified that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order or the accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 3. Martin’s remaining motions [Doc. Nos. 3, 4] are denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of November 2015. 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?