Williams v. McNary et al, No. 2:2010cv00057 - Document 96 (E.D. Ark. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 83 Judge Young's Proposed Findings and Recommendations; dismissing 2 Williams's complaint with prejudice; and denying as moot 87 Williams's motion to compel. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/23/11. (hph)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. McNary et al Doc. 96 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION DAVID WILLIAMS ADC# 78730 v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 2:10-cv-57-DPM WALLACE McNARY, LORETTA MICHAEL, MOSES JACKSON, and GREG HARMON DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has considered Magistrate Judge H. David Young's Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Document No. 83, and David Williams's objections, Document Nos. 86, 88, & 89. After de novo review, the Court adopts Judge Young's proposal as its own. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Williams's motion to compel, Document No.8 7, concerning access to his legal work has already been addressed. The Court's November 2010 order stated that "Williams's right to store court papers must be balanced against ADC's fire and safety concerns, [and] he must decide which papers he wants to keep inside his assigned footlocker." Document No. 43, at 2-3. Williams's complaint, Document No.2, is dismissed with prejudice. And Williams's motion to compel, Document No. 87, is denied as moot. The Court Dockets.Justia.com certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and Judgment would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(a)(3). So Ordered. cl.3 2 ~e .J.OI J
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
