Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Grady v. Kelley, 5:17CV00273-JM-JJV. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20180314897 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, JR. , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and Plaintiff's Objections. After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. IT IS, THEREFORE, O
More

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and Plaintiff's Objections. After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition 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. The Clerk amend the docket to reflect the full and correct names of Defendants as follows: Randall Watson, James Gibson, Antwone Emsweller, Tony McHan, Mark Cashion, Christopher Budnik, Kennie Bolden, Mark Stephens, Rodney Brown, James Plummer, Phillip Easaw, Flora Washington, Michael Demery, Cedric Foots, Tonda Spencer, Faye Pittman, Gloria Thompson, and Gladys Evans.

2. Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 49) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Kelley, Reed, Payne, Watson, Gibson, Emsweller, McHan, Cashion, Harris, Stephens, Brown, Demery, Spencer, King, Pittman, Thompson, Evans, and Piggee are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and these Defendants are DISMISSED from this cause of action.

4. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Budnik, Bolden, Plummer, Easaw, Washington, and Foots for the denial of media and the denial of personal property during relief periods are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

5. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order adopting the recommendations would not be taken in good faith.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer