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)
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?