Adams et al v. United States Department of Justice et al

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING 49 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in its entirety. Further Plaintiff's case is dismissed with prejudice, as set forth. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on November 2, 2012. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
DALE B. ADAMS
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 3:10-CV-03117

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
and ERIC H. HOLDER, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Currently before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 49) filed in this case
October 10, 2012, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
for the Western District of Arkansas. The objection period has passed without objections being filed
by either party.
The Court has reviewed this case, as well as the document submitted by Defendants for in
camera review, 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 Recommendations, IT IS
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 35) is GRANTED with respect
to Plaintiff’s FOIA claims concerning Document 3.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 45)
is DENIED AS MOOT. Furthermore, the Court would have otherwise exercised its discretion under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) to deny the motion, as Plaintiff has adequately investigated any necessary facts
and presented his claims, and the complexity of any facts or legal arguments in this FOIA action is
-1-

low. Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (outlining relevant criteria
for determining whether counsel should be appointed for an indigent litigant in a civil case).
Plaintiff has also previously been denied appointed counsel in this same case (Doc. 13), and the
reasons for that previous denial remain valid.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Court Order (Doc. 46) is DENIED
AS MOOT, insofar as the Court’s records show that Plaintiff was mailed a copy of the Court’s Order
(Doc. 22) dated December 7, 2011, which imposed a temporary stay of this action and set out a
briefing schedule for the parties to file Motions for Summary Judgment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. 48) is DENIED AS
MOOT. The Court has not considered any evidence, in rendering its decision, that would be subject
to suppression. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Motion is procedurally improper and legally insufficient and
contains a litany of allegations that are irrelevant to the limited issue which remained to be decided
in this case: namely, whether Defendants could rightfully withhold Document 3 from disclosure.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 2nd day of November, 2012.

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

-2-