RUPERT v. MILLS, 3:15CV00022 BSM. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20151104602
Visitors: 27
Filed: Nov. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER , Chief District Judge . The partial recommended disposition ("PRD") submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere and plaintiff Prentis Rupert's objections thereto have been reviewed. After careful consideration of these documents and a de novo review of the record, the PRD is hereby adopted in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Redic-Young's motion [Doc. No. 52] is granted and Rupert's claims against her are dismissed without prejudice.
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER , Chief District Judge . The partial recommended disposition ("PRD") submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere and plaintiff Prentis Rupert's objections thereto have been reviewed. After careful consideration of these documents and a de novo review of the record, the PRD is hereby adopted in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Redic-Young's motion [Doc. No. 52] is granted and Rupert's claims against her are dismissed without prejudice. ..
More
ORDER
BRIAN S. MILLER, Chief District Judge.
The partial recommended disposition ("PRD") submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Beth Deere and plaintiff Prentis Rupert's objections thereto have been reviewed. After careful consideration of these documents and a de novo review of the record, the PRD is hereby adopted in all respects.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Redic-Young's motion [Doc. No. 52] is granted and Rupert's claims against her are dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
