McClendon v. Reed et al

Filing 9

ORDER approving and adopting the 4 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in their entirety; dismissing this case without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; counting dismissal of this action as a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); and certifying, 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. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 5/23/2017. (mef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
EDDIE LEE MCCLENDON
VS.

PLAINTIFF
5:17-cv-00094-BRW

DALE REED, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

On April 21, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray submitted a Proposed
Findings and Recommended Disposition (“RD”). On May 5, 2017, Plaintiff sought leave to
amend his complaint. He has now filed an Amended Complaint and objections to the RD.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the “equal protection clause” when they
permitted “inmates with similar and even worse allegations that have gone unproven” to
participate in the work release program, but denied him permission. However, Plaintiff has
provided no regarding who was permitted work release and that they were similarly situated to
him regarding the criminal history and discipline while in prison. Without more, Plaintiff's
vague complaints are insufficient to state an equal protection claim.1
After reviewing the RD, Plaintiff’s objections and amended complaint, and conducting a
de novo review of the record, I approve and adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition in their entirety.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failing to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
Dismissal of this action counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

1

See Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d 1047, 1051 (8th Cir.1998) (en banc) (“[t]he heart of an equal
protection claim is that similarly situated classes of inmates are treated differently, and that this
difference in treatment bears no rational relation to any legitimate penal interest.”).
1

I certify, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2017.

/s/ Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2