Hill v. Hollenbeck et al

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING 78 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS AMENDED, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Rebecca Bennett are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on October 20, 2017. (hnc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FORT SMITH DIVISION BRIAN HILL v. PLAINTIFF No. 2:16-CV-02205 SHERIFF BILL HOLLENBECK, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has received a report and recommendation (Doc. 78) from United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford. No objections have been filed and the deadline to file objections has passed. The Magistrate recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Rebecca Bennett without prejudice. The Court has conducted careful review of this case, and notes that the caption on the report and recommendation incorrectly identifies Plaintiff. This is clearly just a scrivener’s error. The Court received a separate report and recommendation from the same Magistrate on the same date the report and recommendation in this case was filed. See Ernest Lynn Roberts v. Supervisor Cindy Moore, No. 2:16-CV-02017, Doc. 49 (Oct. 2, 2017). The report and recommendation in Mr. Roberts’s case recommended a similar disposition for nearly identical circumstances, and apparently provided the framework for the Magistrate in drafting the report and recommendation in the instant case. Transposing Mr. Roberts’s name for Mr. Hill’s name in the caption of the report and recommendation in this case has no substantive effect on the outcome. With this correction noted, the report and recommendation is otherwise proper, contains no clear error, and is ADOPTED AS AMENDED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Rebecca Bennett are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2017. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?