Hurlbut et al v. Burl et al, No. 2:2013cv00128 - Document 19 (E.D. Ark. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 16 proposed findings and recommendations and dismissing the complaint without prejudice; denying as moot pending motions 2 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 and 18 ; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/04/2013. (rhm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hurlbut et al v. Burl et al Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION DANIEL B. HURLBUT, ADC # 658898; DELWRICK COLEMAN, ADC # 656538; SAMSON TILLIS, ADC # 141221; HARRY SURBUR, ADC # 89794; JOSEPH SMITH, ADC # 127880; JAMES EVERETT, ADC # 109614; CHRISTOPHER BREWER, ADC # 652673; BEN MCCARTER, ADC # 128344; and PAUL BRANSON, ADC # 097273 v. PLAINTIFFS No. 2:13-cv-128-DPM-HDY DANNY BURL; TODD BALL; DAVID MILLS; RAY HOBBS; LARRY MAY; JIM SMITH; WENDY KELLEY; RAYMOND NAYLOR; and JANET LEWIS DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has considered the objections to Magistrate Judge H. David Young's proposed findings and recommendations, N2 16 & 17. On de novo review, the Court adopts Judge Young's proposal. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs Coleman, Tillis, Surbur, Smith, Everett, Brewer, and Branson have not complied with the Court's Order to submit individual amended complaints by 4 November 2013 or risk dismissal, N2 4 at 2. McCarter filed an amended complaint, N2 15, Dockets.Justia.com but fails to state a claim. Hurlbut filed a motion clarifying his claims, NQ 7, but he, too, fails to state a claim. And Hurlbut now requests dismissal without prejudice, NQ 18. Pending motions, NQ 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, & 18, are denied as moot. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the related Judgment would not be taken in good faith. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. 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.
