Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WARD v. LONG, 12-5096. (2013)

Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20130625694 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jun. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2013
Summary: ORDER JIMM LARRY HENDREN, District Judge. Now on this 24th day of June 2013, comes on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (document #41) and plaintiff's objections thereto. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that it is sound in all respects, and that plaintiff has stated neither law nor fact to refute the Recommendation. Also before the Court is a letter from plaintiff (document #43) seeki
More

ORDER

JIMM LARRY HENDREN, District Judge.

Now on this 24th day of June 2013, comes on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (document #41) and plaintiff's objections thereto. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that it is sound in all respects, and that plaintiff has stated neither law nor fact to refute the Recommendation.

Also before the Court is a letter from plaintiff (document #43) seeking additional legal resources and more time to study them. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that these requests are moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (document #41) is hereby adopted in toto, and plaintiff's objections are overruled;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (document #29) is granted, and this case is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent plaintiff's letter (document #43) can be construed as a motion, it is hereby denied as moot.

IT IS 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