Davis v. Phillips et al

Filing 15

AMENDED ORDER re 12 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations; denying as moot additional MOTION 13 to Appoint Counsel filed by Travis Land Davis. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on October 18, 2013. (cnn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION TRAVIS LAND DAVIS VS. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 1:13-cv-1056 TREY PHILLIPS, et al DEFENDANTS AMENDED ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed September 25, 2013, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 8). After conducting pre-service screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Judge Bryant recommends that the above-styled case be dismissed. 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 claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This dismissal of this action constitutes a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk is therefore directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case. Plaintiff’s remaining motions (ECF Nos. 7, 10, 11, and 13) are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.1 IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of October, 2013. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey United States District Judge 1 Pending are Plaintiff’s Motion for Access to Law Library (ECF No. 7); Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 10); and duplicative Motions to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 11 and 13). None of Plaintiff’s requested relief would have any bearing on the Court’s decision to dismiss this action. First, he does not state with any specificity how he would amend his Complaint if allowed to do so. Second, Plaintiff is not legally entitled to a law library or assistance from the Ouachita County Jail in pursuing this civil matter. Schrier v. Halford, 60 F.3d 1309, 1313 (8th Cir. 1995). Third, the decision to appoint counsel in civil cases is committed to the discretion of the district court. In re Lane, 801 F.2d 1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 1986). This Court does not routinely appoint counsel in civil cases such as this, and Plaintiff’s conclusory statement that this is a “complex” matter is not sufficient for this Court to seriously consider his request.

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?