Smith v. Brooks

Filing 8

ORDER adopting in their entirety 5 the proposed findings and recommendations; dismissing without prejudice Smith's petition; counting this dismissal as a "strike"; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/31/2017. (kdr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
BRAD PAUL SMITH
ADC #660448
v.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00226 BSM

FRANKIE N. BROOKS

DEFENDANT
ORDER

The proposed findings and recommendations [Doc. No. 5] submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney and plaintiff Brad Smith’s objections [Doc. No. 7] have
been reviewed.

After de novo review of the record, the proposed findings and

recommendations are adopted in their entirety. Although Smith provides additional facts
in his objections, his section 1983 claim is nonetheless precluded by Edwards v. Balisok, 520
U.S. 641 (1997) and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Accordingly, Smith’s petition
is dismissed without prejudice. He may reassert his claim for damages if his disciplinary
conviction is later invalidated.
Dismissal of this action counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3), it is certified that an in forma pauperis appeal from
this order would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of October 2017.

_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE