Smith v. Prysock et al

Filing 71

ORDER adopting 68 Report and Recommendations. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball is hereby adopted as the finding of this Court, and this action is dismissed with prejudice to the claims being asserted again until the Heck conditions are met. A judgment will be entered in a separate docket entry to follow. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on February 3, 2015. (SP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

LAURON EDWARD SMITH
VS.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13cv195-DPJ-FKB

RICK PRYSOCK, sued in his official and/or individual
capacity; and STEVE GILL, sued in his official and/or
individual capacity

DEFENDANTS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This pro se prisoner case is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation [68]
of Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball, after referral for hearing by this Court. Judge Ball
recommends dismissing Plaintiff Lauron Edward Smith’s Complaint [1] because Smith’s claims
are barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). A copy
of the Report and Recommendation [68] was mailed to Smith on January 14, 2015, but was
returned as undeliverable on February 2, 2015. Mail [69, 70] (indicating that prisoner was
“Released 1-01-15”).
The Court previously warned Smith that failure to keep the Court apprised of his current
address could result in dismissal of this action. See Order [4] at 2. Moreover, having reviewed
the filings in this case, the Court agrees with Judge Ball’s finding that Heck currently bars this
claim. The Court therefore adopts the Report and Recommendation [68] as the opinion of the
Court.1

1

The Court amends the Report and Recommendation slightly to note that after it was
issued, the Mississippi Court of Appeals rejected Smith’s motion for post-conviction relief. See
Smith v. Epps, No. 2013–CP–02097–COA, 2015 WL 233654, at *1–2 (Miss. Ct. App. Jan. 20,
2015). Smith has not yet overcome Heck.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball be, and the same is hereby, adopted as the finding of this Court,
and this action is dismissed with prejudice to the claims being asserted again until the Heck
conditions are met. See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
A separate final judgment will be entered in this action in accordance with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 3rd day of February, 2015.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2