Barron-Bartlett v. Lay et al, No. 2:2020cv00180 - Document 23 (E.D. Ark. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER granting 22 proposed findings and recommendations; granting 18 defendants' motion for summary judgment because Joseph Barron-Bartlett failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the ADC's grievance policy before filing his section 1983 lawsuit; and dismissing this case without prejudice. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 3/5/2021. (kdr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Barron-Bartlett v. Lay et al Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DELTA DIVISION JOSEPH BARRON-BARTLETT ADC #163751 v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00180-BSM GAYLAN LAY, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER After careful review of the record, United States Magistrate Judge Jerome Kearney’s proposed findings and recommendations [Doc. No. 22] are adopted. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 18] is granted because Joseph Barron-Bartlett failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the ADC’s grievance policy before filing his section 1983 lawsuit. Accordingly, this case is dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of March, 2021. ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
