Smith v. Brooks, No. 5:2017cv00226 - Document 8 (E.D. Ark. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER adopting in their entirety 5 the proposed findings and recommendations; dismissing without prejudice Smith's petition; counting this dismissal as a "strike"; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/31/2017. (kdr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Brooks Doc. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION BRAD PAUL SMITH ADC #660448 v. PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 5:17-CV-00226 BSM FRANKIE N. BROOKS DEFENDANT ORDER The proposed findings and recommendations [Doc. No. 5] submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney and plaintiff Brad Smith’s objections [Doc. No. 7] have been reviewed. After de novo review of the record, the proposed findings and recommendations are adopted in their entirety. Although Smith provides additional facts in his objections, his section 1983 claim is nonetheless precluded by Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Accordingly, Smith’s petition is dismissed without prejudice. He may reassert his claim for damages if his disciplinary conviction is later invalidated. Dismissal of this action counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3), it is certified that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of October 2017. _________________________________ 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.
