Bell v. Scherrey et al
ORDER ADOPTING 3 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on September 13, 2013. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
DANIEL ELON BELL
Case No. 2:13-CV-02201
CHRISTINA SCHERREY, Public Defender;
STEPHEN TABOR, Judge; and RAQUEL
SMITH, Court Administrator
The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations (Doc. 3) from United States
Magistrate Judge Erin L. Setser. There have been no objections. Plaintiff did, however, file a
motion (Doc. 6) for extension of time to amend his complaint. Plaintiff does not indicate what
amendments he would like to make to his complaint, and the Court cannot imagine any
amendment—short of asserting new claims—that would enable Plaintiff’s complaint to survive
dismissal. The Court therefore ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 6) for extension of time to
amend his complaint is DENIED. If Plaintiff wishes to assert new or different claims he must file
them in a new case.
After careful review, the Court concludes that the findings and recommendations should be,
and hereby are, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings in all respects in their entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application (Doc. 2) to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as it is
frivolous, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and seeks relief from Defendants
who are immune from such relief.
The Clerk is directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of September, 2013.
/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?