Martin v. Tucker et al

Filing 4

JUDGMENT/ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re: 2 Application to Proceed IFP (42:1983) filed by Curtis L. Martin is denied; claims dismissed with prejudice; dismissal constitutes a strike under the PLRA, Clerkis directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on May 8, 2012. (cnn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION CURTIS MARTIN VS. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 1:12-cv-1037 CAL TUCKER, RETIRED; OFFICER JOHNNY ETHRIDGE, Hamburg Police Department; and CHIEF OF POLICE TOMMY BREEDLOVE, Hamburg Police Department DEFENDANTS JUDGMENT Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed April 18, 2012, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 3). Judge Bryant recommends that Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that the above-styled case be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to object has passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in toto. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED, and his claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The dismissal of this action constitutes a strike under the PLRA. For this reason, the Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of May, 2012. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Hon. Susan O. Hickey 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?