TILLER v. NASH, 14-CV-4095. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20150806723
Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed May 27, 2015 by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 14). Judge Bryant recommends that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) be granted and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 17). After reviewing the record
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed May 27, 2015 by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 14). Judge Bryant recommends that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) be granted and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 17). After reviewing the record ..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed May 27, 2015 by the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (ECF No. 14). Judge Bryant recommends that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) be granted and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 17).
After reviewing the record de novo, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objections1 and adopts Judge Bryant's Report and Recommendation as its own. For the reasons stated herein and above, as well as those contained in the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 14), Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In accordance with Judge Bryant's recommendation, the dismissal of this case will constitute a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The Clerk is directed to place a strike flag on the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff's objections repeat the claims made in his Complaint and the arguments made in his response to the Motion to Dismiss. These issues were thoroughly addressed in the Report and Recommendation, and the Court will not repeat that analysis here.
Source: Leagle
