Dingman v. Barron et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on February 13, 2014. (adw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
MITCHELL ALAN DINGMAN
Case No. 5:13-CV-05117
SERGIO BARRON, Deputy Public Defender;
BENTONCOUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE;
BENTON COUNTY JAIL; and BENTON COUNTY
Currently before the Court is the report and recommendations (“R&R”) (Doc. 10) filed in this
case on October 21, 2013, by the Honorable Erin L. Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas. Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s two supplements (Docs. 10-11)
to his complaint. The supplements were filed on the same day as the Magistrate’s R&R.
Considering the fact that Plaintiff must have mailed the supplements at some point before October
21, 2013, the supplements presumably were not meant to be responsive to the R&R. However, as
no other objections have been filed to the R&R, the Court did review the supplements to ensure that
Plaintiff did not presciently address the issues raised in the R&R.
Having reviewed this case and, being well and sufficiently advised, the Court finds that the
R&R is proper and should be and hereby is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The supplements
filed by Plaintiff do not address or remedy the issues raised in the R&R. Accordingly, for the
reasons stated in the Magistrate’s report and recommendations, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Judgment will be entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of February, 2014.
/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?