DUREN v. TURNER, 4:10-cv-4123. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120328973
Visitors: 26
Filed: Mar. 09, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2012
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Chief Magistrate Judge. This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, William Duren (hereinafter Duren) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. On February 27, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss (Doc. 45). The parties have reached a settlement agreement. I therefore recommend that the joint motion to dismiss (Doc. 45) be granted and this case dismissed with prejudice
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Chief Magistrate Judge. This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, William Duren (hereinafter Duren) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. On February 27, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss (Doc. 45). The parties have reached a settlement agreement. I therefore recommend that the joint motion to dismiss (Doc. 45) be granted and this case dismissed with prejudice s..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Chief Magistrate Judge.
This is a civil rights action filed by Plaintiff, William Duren (hereinafter Duren) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. He proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis.
On February 27, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss (Doc. 45). The parties have reached a settlement agreement. I therefore recommend that the joint motion to dismiss (Doc. 45) be granted and this case dismissed with prejudice subject to the terms of the settlement agreement.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.
Source: Leagle
