Payton v. Outlaw et al, No. 2:2013cv00092 - Document 42 (E.D. Ark. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 38 proposed findings and recommendations, as supplemented and overruling Payton's objections, 39 & 40 . Defendants' motion for summary judgment, 26 , is granted. The Doe defendants are dismissed without prejudice. Payton's request, 41 , is denied. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/20/2015. (jak)

Download PDF
Payton v. Outlaw et al Doc. 42 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION ANTHONY L. PAYTON REG. #24245-076 v. PLAINTIFF No. 2:13-cv-92-DPM-JJV N. THOMPSON, SIS, FCI Forrest City; DOES, DHO Hearing Officer, Jail Lieutenant "Josie," Officers of Special Housing Unit, Unit Manager, Helena D Unit, and Mental Health Doctors; BURNETT, Counselor, FCI Forrest City; and J. SIEJA, Lieutenant, SHU, FCI Forrest City1 DEFENDANTS ORDER On de novo review, the Court adopts the proposed findings and recommendation, NQ 38, as supplemented and overrules Payton's objections, NQ 39 & 40. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The statutory bar is clear, and neither of the narrow exceptions articulated in Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 341 (8th Cir. 2005) applies. Payton had an opportunity to submit documents justifying his untimely appeal, but didn't. NQ 28-1 at 3-4, 11-12. And he doesn't argue that any official thwarted his attempt to provide that documentation. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, NQ 26, is granted. The Doe Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. FED. R. CIV. 1 The Clerk is directed to correct the docket sheet to reflect "J. SIEJA, Lieutenant, SHU, FCI Forrest City." Dockets.Justia.com P. 4(m). Payton's request, NQ 41, is denied. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall J{ United States District Judge -2-

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.