Henderson v. Tabor et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, as set forth. Further, Plaintiff's Complaint is Dismissed with Prejudice. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on December 3, 2012. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
TOM EDWARD HENDERSON
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 2:12-CV-02121

STEPHEN TABOR, Circuit Judge;
RAY SPRUELL, Chief Public Defender;
and ERIC WILLIAMS, Police Officer

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) filed in this case on
July 6, 2012, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, Chief United States Magistrate for the
Western District of Arkansas. The objection period has passed without objections being filed by any
party.1

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, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 2) is DENIED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on the
grounds that his claims are frivolous, fail to state claims, or seek relief from a defendant who is
immune from suit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 7) is
DENIED, as Plaintiff’s claims have been found to be subject to dismissal upon preliminary review,
1

The Court notes that the Report and Recommendation originally mailed to Plaintiff was
returned marked as undeliverable. Once the Court received notice of a change of address for
Plaintiff, the Report and Recommendation was resent on July 19, 2012. Plaintiff has not filed any
objections since that date. Plaintiff did, however file a Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 7) on July
31, 2012, but such Motion contains no objections regarding the Report and Recommendation.

and the Court otherwise finds that assistance of counsel is not warranted or necessary in this case.
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 3rd day of December, 2012.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE