Ervin v. Hyslip et al
Filing
9
ORDER ADOPTING 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Clerk is directed to place a 1915 STRIKE FLAG on the case. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on June 2, 2014. (src)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
ROBIN WADE ERVIN
PLAINTIFF
v.
Civil No. 14-5102
DENNY HYSLIP, Public
Defender; BLAKE CHANCELLOR,
Public Defender; and ACE BAIL
BONDS, LLC
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Now on this 2nd day of June, 2014, comes on for consideration the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (document #8), to
which
there
are
no
objections,
and
the
Court,
being
well
and
sufficiently advised, finds that the Report And Recommendation is sound
in all respects1, and should be adopted in its entirety.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (document #8) is adopted in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, this case is dismissed as all claims
asserted are frivolous, fail to state claims upon which relief may be
granted, or are asserted against individuals immune from suit. See 28
U.S.C.
§
1915(e)(2)(B)(I)-(iii)(in
forma
dismissed on such grounds at any time).
pauperis
action
may
be
The dismissal of this case
will constitute a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
The Clerk is
directed to place a § 1915(g) strike flag on the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
The Court did, however, notice what seemed to be an error on page 3 of the Report
and Recommendation. The first line of page 3 names “Hyslip and Norris” as defendants.
Upon consultation with the recommending court, the Court finds that naming “Norris” as
a defendant was a typographical error. The Report and Recommendation should have stated
“Hyslip and Chancellor”. The Court adopts and approves the Report and Recommendation
with that correction.
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?