DEATON v. MAY, 2:13-cv-00136 KGB-JTK. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20150401b90
Visitors: 26
Filed: Mar. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2015
Summary: ORDER KRISTINE G. BAKER , District Judge . Before the Court is plaintiff Christopher Deaton's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order ruling on two Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney and other matters (Dkt. Nos. 47, 52). Mr. Deaton has pointed to no error in the Court's rulings, and the Court sees none. The Court denies Mr. Deaton's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 52). The Court also has received Proposed Finding
Summary: ORDER KRISTINE G. BAKER , District Judge . Before the Court is plaintiff Christopher Deaton's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order ruling on two Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney and other matters (Dkt. Nos. 47, 52). Mr. Deaton has pointed to no error in the Court's rulings, and the Court sees none. The Court denies Mr. Deaton's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 52). The Court also has received Proposed Findings..
More
ORDER
KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.
Before the Court is plaintiff Christopher Deaton's motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order ruling on two Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney and other matters (Dkt. Nos. 47, 52). Mr. Deaton has pointed to no error in the Court's rulings, and the Court sees none. The Court denies Mr. Deaton's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 52).
The Court also has received Proposed Findings and Recommendations from Judge Kearney recommending that the Court deny Mr. Deaton's pending motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. Nos. 44, 57). The Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in part by adopting the conclusion reached by Judge Kearney but not the reasoning (Dkt. No. 57). The Court rejects the reasoning based on recent legal developments, including the decision in Holt v. Hobbs, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 853 (Jan. 20, 2015), and based on representations and arguments made in defendants' pending motion to dismiss Mr. Deaton's claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 et seq. (Dkt. No. 108). At this time, the Court denies without prejudice as moot Mr. Deaton's motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 44).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
