Dunahue v. Bolden et al

Filing 78

ORDER adopting the 75 partial recommended disposition; and denying 33 Dunahue's motion for preliminary injunction and 61 motion for summary judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/21/2016. (mef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
REGINALD DUNAHUE
ADC #106911
v.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 5:16-CV-00105 BSM

KENNIE BOLDEN, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The partial recommended disposition (“PRD”) submitted by U.S. Magistrate Judge
J. Thomas Ray [Doc. No. 75] and plaintiff Reginald Dunahue’s objections [Doc. Nos. 76, 77]
have been reviewed. After reviewing the record, the PRD is adopted. Accordingly,
Dunahue’s motions for a preliminary injunction [Doc. No. 33] and for summary judgment
[Doc. No. 61] are denied.
Dunahue’s objections also request review of Judge Ray’s prior decisions. See Doc.
No. 76 at 1. Dunahue requested multiple forms of relief in the same motion: (1) to strike
defendant Kennie Bolden’s answers to interrogatories; (2) to compel defendant Sedrick Foote
to respond; (3) for sanctions; (4) and for a cease and desist order. See Doc. No. 57. Judge
Ray granted the motion to strike and ordered Foote to respond. See Doc. No. 74. There is
no need to revisit the decision because sanctions were not appropriate. While the fourth
request was not addressed, there is no need to revisit it because the PRD addresses the
request within the context of the motion for an injunction that was denied today.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of October 2016.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2