Taylor v. Kelley et al, No. 5:2018cv00080 - Document 23 (E.D. Ark. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER approving and adopting 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; allowing Plaintiff Quincy Taylor to proceed on his failure to protect claims against defendants Shabazz, McConnell , James Gibson, Scott Taylor, Washington, and Does; dismissing without prejudice from this action all other claims; dismissing without prejudice from this action Defendants Wendy Kelley, Raymond Naylor, Keith Waddle, James Byers, and Linsey; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order adopting the Proposed Findings and Recommendations would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/23/2018. (cmn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taylor v. Kelley et al Doc. 23 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION QUINCY TAYLOR ADC #164516 v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 5:18-cv-00080-KGB/JJV WENDY KELLEY, Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction; et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has received the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 8). No objections have been filed, and the time to file an objection has passed. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 8). It is, therefore, ordered that: 1. Plaintiff Quincy Taylor is allowed to proceed on his failure to protect claims against defendants Shabazz, McConnell, James Gibson, Scott Taylor, Washington, and Does. 1 2. All other claims are dismissed without prejudice from this action. 3. Defendants Wendy Kelley, Raymond Naylor, Keith Waddle, James Byers, and Linsey are dismissed without prejudice from this action. 1 Like Judge Volpe, this Court conditions Mr. Taylor’s ability to proceed against the Doe defendants on his stating the full name and service address of any Doe defendant so that the Doe defendant may be served in the time allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). If Mr. Taylor fails to meet that condition, his claims against the Doe defendants may be dismissed without prejudice. Dockets.Justia.com 4. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order adopting the Proposed Findings and Recommendations would not be taken in good faith. So ordered this 23rd day of July, 2018. _____________________________________ Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
