Cody v. Erma et al

Filing 36

ORDER 33 adopting Report and Recommendations; granting 25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 30 Motion to Stay; denying as moot 35 Motion for Hearing; denying as moot 28 Motion for Default Judgment. This dismissal is considered a STRIKE. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on January 7, 2014. (src)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION STEPHEN CODY PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 10-6070 MS. MARGARET, Probation and Parole Office; and MS. RHONDA WARE, Probation and Parole Office DEFENDANTS ORDER Now on this 7th day of January 2014, there comes on for consideration the report and recommendation filed herein on November 12, 2013, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (Doc. 33). Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. 34). The court has reviewed this case de novo 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, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 25) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as the claims are frivolous, fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted, or are against parties immune from suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii)(IFP action may be dismissed on such grounds at any time). Plaintiff is advised that this dismissal is considered a “strike” for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform AO72A (Rev. 8/82) Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (doc. 28), Defendants’ Motion to Stay (doc. 30) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing (doc. 35) are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Robert T. Dawson Honorable Robert T. Dawson United States District Judge AO72A (Rev. 8/82)

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?