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)

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