DOERING v. MOORE, 5:13-cv-00149 KGB/JTR. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20141015d92
Visitors: 11
Filed: Oct. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 14, 2014
Summary: ORDER KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Dispositions submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Dkt. Nos. 45, 46). No objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed. After careful review, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Dispositions should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. It i
Summary: ORDER KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge. The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Dispositions submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Dkt. Nos. 45, 46). No objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed. After careful review, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Dispositions should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. It is..
More
ORDER
KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Dispositions submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Dkt. Nos. 45, 46). No objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed. After careful review, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Dispositions should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.
It is therefore ordered that:
1. Defendant Wendy Kelley's motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 30). Defendant Annette Esaw's motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 33). Plaintiff Alan L. Doering's claims against Ms. Kelley and Ms. Esaw are dismissed without prejudice due to lack of exhaustion.
2. Defendant Troy Moore is dismissed without prejudice from this action due to lack of service.
3. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
