LeFors v. Langston et al, No. 3:2014cv00138 - Document 177 (E.D. Ark. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 174 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. Defendants' 158 Motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants Dan Langston, John Cal ley, Ray Brandon, Chad Brandon, T.J. Underwood, and Sammie Johnson are dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies against them. Defendants' request for a "with prejudice" dismissal is denied. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/30/2015. (jak)

Download PDF
LeFors v. Langston et al Doc. 177 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION HERMAN H. LEFORS, JR., ODOC #112524 v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 3:14-cv-00138-KGB-JJV DAN LANGSTON, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 174). No objections have been filed. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects. It is therefore ordered that: 1. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part (Dkt. No. 158). Defendants Dan Langston, John Calley, Ray Brandon, Chad Brandon, T. J. Underwood, and Sammie Johnson are dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies against them. Defendants’ request for a “with prejudice” dismissal is denied. 2. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. SO ORDERED this the 30th day of July, 2015. ________________________________ KRISTINE G. BAKER 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.