Derx v. Kelley et al

Filing 24

ORDER Adopting 22 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in their entirety. The Clerk will amend the docket to reflect the full and correct names of Defendants Roderick Davis, Albert Kittrell, and Jeremy Andrews. Defendants Davis and Kittr ell's 16 Motion to Dismiss is granted. Defendants Kelley and Andrews's 20 Motion to Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief m ay be granted. Dismissal of this action counts as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 7/5/2017. (mcz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
DENNIS R. DERX
ADC #162003
v.

PLAINTIFF

5:17CV00040-JM

WENDY KELLEY, Director, ADC; et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted
by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and Plaintiff’s Motion for Order asking the Court
to dismiss his claims against Defendants Kelley and Andrews.1 After carefully considering the
objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed
Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in
their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

The Clerk will amend the docket to reflect the full and correct names of

Defendants Roderick Davis, Albert Kittrell, and Jeremy Andrews.
2.

Defendants Davis and Kittrell’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED.

3.

Defendants Kelley and Andrews’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 20) is

GRANTED.
4.

Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
5.

Dismissal of this action counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

6.

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

1 Plaintiff states that he is “filing a motion on the Defendants Dr. Albert Kittral and Rodrick Davis . . . .” (ECF No. 23).
It is unclear what type of motion Plaintiff is filing against these Defendants. It is irrelevant, however, because the Court
is adopting Judge Volpe’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against
them..

appeal from this Order adopting the recommendations would not be taken in good faith.
DATED this 5th day of July, 2017.

_______________________________________
JAMES M. MOODY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE