Williamson v. Bell et al, No. 5:2014cv00198 - Document 91 (E.D. Ark. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER adppting 90 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; granting 72 75 Motions for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 89 Motion for Order. Plaintiff's claims against Defe ndants Shawn Richard, James Booker, and Farrelle Williams, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Plaintiffs claims against all other Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 3/3/2015. (ks)

Download PDF
Williamson v. Bell et al Doc. 91 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION CHARLES WILLIAMSON ADC #152796 V. PLAINTIFF NO: 5:14CV00198 SWW SEVILLE BELL, JR. et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young. No objections have been filed. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition 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’ motions for summary judgment (docket entries #72 & #75) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. 2. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Shawn Richard, James Booker, and Farrelle Williams, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. Plaintiff’s claims against all other Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. Plaintiff’s motion to grant exhibits (docket entry #89) is DENIED AS MOOT. 5. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal taken from the order and judgment dismissing this action is considered frivolous and not in good faith. DATED this 3rd day of March 2015. /s/Susan Webber Wright 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.