Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BALES v. FERGUSON, 1:11-cv-70-DPM-BD. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20120323e05 Visitors: 25
Filed: Mar. 22, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 22, 2012
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. Neither Cardoza nor any other party has objected to Magistrate Judge Deere's recommended partial disposition, Document No. 50, and the Court sees no legal error or clear error of fact on the face of the record in the proposal. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3) (1983 addition to advisory committee notes). The Court therefore adopts the proposed decision. Cardoza's loss-of-property, deliberate indifference, and verbal harassment claims are dismissed without pre
More

ORDER

D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.

Neither Cardoza nor any other party has objected to Magistrate Judge Deere's recommended partial disposition, Document No. 50, and the Court sees no legal error or clear error of fact on the face of the record in the proposal. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3) (1983 addition to advisory committee notes). The Court therefore adopts the proposed decision. Cardoza's loss-of-property, deliberate indifference, and verbal harassment claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Court joins Judge Deere's condemnation of the offensive remarks, but agrees they are not actionable under current precedent.

All of Bales's recent mail from the Court has been returned, but the copy of Judge Deere's order directing him to amend was not, and the Court therefore concludes he received it. Thus the dismissal as to him is proper. Bales's claims are dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk is directed to terminate him as a party plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to terminate as party defendants Ferguson, Branscumb, John Doe "Donnie," Moore, Beel, Lawson, and Cockrill.

So Ordered.

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