Davis v. Boyd et al, No. 3:2020cv00044 - Document 9 (E.D. Ark. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 8 proposed findings and recommendations; and dismissing without prejudice 2 Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Dismissal of this action constitutes a "strike". The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order and Judgment disimissing this action would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 04/03/2020. (ajt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis v. Boyd et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION DEMARIO DAVIS v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 3:20-cv-00044-LPR MARTY BOYD, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney. (Doc. 8). There have been no objections. After a careful review of the proposed findings and recommendations, as well as of the record, the Court adopts the proposed findings and recommendations in their entirety. Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 2). 2. Dismissal of this action constitutes a “strike” within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 3. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order and Judgment dismissing this action would not be taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Dated this 3rd day of April 2020. ________________________________ 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.
