Rankin v. Cooper et al
ORDER Adopting 6 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's 7 Motion for Extension of Time to object is denied as moot. Rankin's complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal counts as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/28/2017. (mcz)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
STEEDRIC COOPER, IPO, Delta Regional
Unit; LISA BASS, Records Department;
SHANON McFADDEN, Classification;
WENDY KELLEY, Director, ADC;
K. PAYNE, IPO; and DARRYL GOLDEN,
Warden, Delta Regional Unit
1. Rankin filed a motion for an extension of time to object, but has
objected twice since then. NQ 8 & 9. The motion, NQ 7, is denied as moot.
2. On de nova review, the Court adopts the recommendation, NQ 6, as
supplemented, and overrules Rankin's objections, NQ 8 & 9.
Magistrate Judge Volpe correctly concluded that Rankin's
complaint fails to state a claim against any of the defendants. He also directed
Rankin to provide any more information that would bolster his allegations.
NQ 6 at 4. Rankin has now explained how he believes each defendant was
involved. NQ 8 & 9. Even with these clarifications, though, Rankin fails to
state a claim against any of the defendants. His complaint will therefore be
dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal counts as a" strike" for purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and
accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C.
D.P. Marshall Jr. (/
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?