Wright v. Board of Commissioners of Sebastian County, Arkansas et al

Filing 34

ORDER adopting 31 Report and Recommendations in its entirety and denying as moot 33 Motion for Recusal; granting 12 Motion to Dismiss; granting 14 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 16 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; den ying as moot 21 Motion for Leave; denying as moot 22 Motion to Compel; denying as moot 25 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying as moot 26 Motion to Dismiss Party and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on March 30, 2010. (rw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION JAMES BRIAN WRIGHT V. Civil No. 09-2091 PLAINTIFF

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF SEBASTIAN COUNTY; JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICERS; RON LOCKHART; MARK HALLUM; FRANK ATKINSON and JOHN DOE DEPUTIES OF THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ORDER On this 30th day of March 2010, there

DEFENDANTS

comes

on

for

consideration the report and recommendation filed in this case on March 8, 2010, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. 31). (Doc.

Also before the Court are Plaintiff's objections to the

report and recommendation (doc. 32). The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows: The report and

recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff now contends in his objections to the

report and recommendation that he was insane at the time his cause of action arose and continues to be insane, therefore, the Court should toll the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not

presented credible evidence to the Court sufficient to support such an allegation. Further, if Plaintiff is insane, he is not

a proper party to bring this suit.

AO72A (Rev. 8/82)

Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (docs. 12 & 14) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as barred by the statute of limitations. Further, the remaining pending

motions (docs. 16, 21, 22, 25, 26 & 33) are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Robert T. Dawson Honorable Robert T. Dawson United States District Judge

AO72A (Rev. 8/82)