Goforth v. Bruce et al

Filing 5

ORDER ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in its entirety and denying plaintiff's 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; further plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice and the court finds that this case should be counted as a strike under 28 USC 1915(g) and directing the clerk to place a 1915(g) strike flag on the case. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on May 10, 2012. (rw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION TERRY GOFORTH v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 2:12-CV-02071 INVESTIGATOR TOM BRUCE; and SHERIFF RON BROWN DEFENDANTS ORDER Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) filed in this case on April 13, 2012, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, Chief United States Magistrate for the Western District of Arkansas. More than fourteen (14) days have passed without objections being filed by the parties. The Court has reviewed this case 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. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Furthermore, the Court finds that this case should be counted as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). As such, the Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of May, 2012. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. 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?