HUGHES v. HOLIDAY, 4:17-CV-00392 BSM. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20170810814
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 09, 2017
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER , Chief District Judge . Having conducted a de nova review of the proposed findings and recommended disposition (prd) [Doc. No. 5], plaintiff's objections to defendants' answer to the complaint [Doc. Nos. 17, 18] (which are being considered as objections to the prd), and the entire record, the prd is adopted. Although the prd is correct that plaintiff's "statement of claim" does not mention defendant Paxton, see Doc. No. 5 at 2-3, it does specifically mention defe
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER , Chief District Judge . Having conducted a de nova review of the proposed findings and recommended disposition (prd) [Doc. No. 5], plaintiff's objections to defendants' answer to the complaint [Doc. Nos. 17, 18] (which are being considered as objections to the prd), and the entire record, the prd is adopted. Although the prd is correct that plaintiff's "statement of claim" does not mention defendant Paxton, see Doc. No. 5 at 2-3, it does specifically mention defen..
More
ORDER
BRIAN S. MILLER, Chief District Judge.
Having conducted a de nova review of the proposed findings and recommended disposition (prd) [Doc. No. 5], plaintiff's objections to defendants' answer to the complaint [Doc. Nos. 17, 18] (which are being considered as objections to the prd), and the entire record, the prd is adopted. Although the prd is correct that plaintiff's "statement of claim" does not mention defendant Paxton, see Doc. No. 5 at 2-3, it does specifically mention defendant Jody Huckabee. See Complaint, Doc. No. 2, at 6. Nonetheless, plaintiff does not state a claim of wrongdoing against Huckabee, but merely states that Huckabee informed plaintiff that Huckabee could not serve kosher meals unless he received orders from the chaplain or doctor. Id. Huckabee and Paxton are therefore dismissed without prejudice, and it is certified that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
