Loftis v. Edwards et al

Filing 18

ORDER approving and adopting 4 Recommended Disposition as this Court's findings in all respects; dismissing Mr. Loftis's 1983 claims without prejudice and dismissing his pendent negligence claim with prejudice; finding that this dismissal constitutes a strike; certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith; and denying as moot Mr. Loftis's 8 motion to amend and 16 supplement to the motion to amend. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 02/21/2017. (rhm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
ORVIL D. LOFTIS,
ADC #103901
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 5:16-cv-00076-KGB-JTR

JEREMY EDWARDS,
Correctional Officer,
Delta Regional Unit, ADC, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Dkt. No. 4). Plaintiff Orvil D. Loftis has filed objections (Dkt.
No. 10). After careful review of the Recommended Disposition and the timely objections, as well
as a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Recommended Disposition should
be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 4).
It is therefore ordered that:
1.

Mr. Loftis’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims are dismissed without prejudice, and his

pendent negligence claim is dismissed with prejudice.
2.

This dismissal constitutes a “strike,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3.

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.
4.

Because this Court adopts the Recommended Disposition to dismiss this case, the

Court denies as moot Mr. Loftis’s motion to amend and supplement to the motion to amend (Dkt.
Nos. 8, 16). In the alternative, even if this Court were to consider Mr. Loftis’s motion to amend
and supplement to the motion to amend, the Court would deny the motion. The Court has carefully

reviewed Mr. Loftis’s motion to amend, which includes his proposed amended complaint, and
supplement to the motion to amend (Dkt. Nos. 8, 16). The Court would deny Mr. Loftis’s motion
to amend and supplement to the motion to amend as futile because the amendments he proposes
do not cure the deficiencies in his complaint identified by Judge Ray and that are the basis of this
Court’s dismissal of his claims. See Magee v. Trustees of Hamline Univ., Minn., 957 F.Supp.2d
1047 (D. Minn. 2013) (determining that an amendment is futile if it fails to create claims that
would withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted).
So ordered this 21st day of February, 2017.

________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2