Reed v. Hardin, 2:18CV00105-JM-JTR. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20200106467
Visitors: 26
Filed: Jan. 03, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2020
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, JR. , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. No objections have been filed. After careful review, the Recommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Separate Defendant John Hardin's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 39) is GRANTED, and Christopher Marzett Reed's claims against him are dismissed, with prejudice.
Summary: ORDER JAMES M. MOODY, JR. , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. No objections have been filed. After careful review, the Recommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Separate Defendant John Hardin's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 39) is GRANTED, and Christopher Marzett Reed's claims against him are dismissed, with prejudice. 2..
More
ORDER
JAMES M. MOODY, JR., District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. No objections have been filed. After careful review, the Recommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Separate Defendant John Hardin's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 39) is GRANTED, and Christopher Marzett Reed's claims against him are dismissed, with prejudice.
2. It is CERTIFIED, 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.
Source: Leagle
