Percefull v. Barly et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, denying as moot 6 Motion to Supplement and dismissing case with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Robert T. Dawson on June 25, 2013. (tg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION RICHARD PERCEFULL v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 11-6079 LIEUTENANT BAILY, Malvern Police Department; RICHARD A. GARRETT, Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney; GREGORY GRAIN, Public Defender; SHERIFF CHAD LEDBETTER, Hot Springs County; MAYOR NORTHCUT, Malvern, Arkansas; CHRIS CLAGLAKER, Mayor, Camden, Arkansas; EDDY R. EASLEY, Prosecuting Attorney, Malvern, Arkansas; DEPUTY HALL, Malvern Police Department; PHILLIP H. SHIRRON, Circuit Judge, Hot Springs County; WILLIAM O’KEEF, Chief of Police, Camden Arkansas; and DONNIE TALER, Chief of Police, Malvern Arkansas DEFENDANTS ORDER Now on this 25th day of June 2013, there comes on for consideration the report and recommendation filed herein on April 19, 2013, by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 7). (Doc. Also before the Court are Plaintiff’s written objections. (Doc. 8). 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, Plaintiff’s IFP motion (doc. 1) is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint (doc. 2) is DISMISSED WITH Page 1 of 2 PREJUDICE on the grounds that the claims are frivolous, fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted, or are asserted against individuals who are immune from suit. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii)(IFP action grounds Defendant’s at any time). may be See 28 U.S.C. dismissed Motion to on such Supplement Complaint (doc. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Robert T. Dawson Honorable Robert T. Dawson United States District Judge Page 2 of 2

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?