Siddig v. Neald et al, No. 4:2015cv00464 - Document 6 (E.D. Ark. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 4 proposed findings and recommendations in their entirety. Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants is dismissed without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This dismissal constitutes a &qu ot;strike" within the meaning of the PLRA. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order and Judgment dismissing this action would not be in good faith. An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Order. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 8/21/2015. (jak)

Download PDF
Siddig v. Neald et al Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MOHAMMED SIDDIG v. PLAINTIFF No. 4:15CV00464-JLH-JTK DEPUTY NEALD, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney. After a review of those proposed findings and recommendations, and the timely objections received thereto, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts them 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. 2. This dismissal constitutes a “strike” within the meaning of the PLRA. 3. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from an Order and Judgment dismissing this action would not be in good faith, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). An appropriate Judgment shall accompany this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of August, 2015. ________________________________ J. LEON HOLMES 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.