Henderson v. Straughn et al, No. 5:2015cv00205 - Document 7 (E.D. Ark. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 4 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. Plaintiff's 2 Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. D ismissal of this action counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 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. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 7/21/2015. (ks)

Download PDF
Henderson v. Straughn et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION TOM HENDERSON, ADC #097573 * * * * * * * * * Plaintiff, v. STRAUGHN, Warden, Cummins Unit, ADC, et al. Defendants. No. 5:15CV00205-SWW-JJV ORDER The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe. No objections have been filed.1 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. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. Dismissal of this action counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 3. 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. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2015. /s/Susan Webber Wright UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 On July 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint and for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 6], which references Judge Volpe’s recommended disposition. Even considering Plaintiff’s proposed amendments, for the reasons set forth in the recommended disposition, Plaintiff fails to state a viable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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.