WOODS v. COOK

Case No. 5:17-cv-00023-KGB/JJV.

DEMETRIUS LEKI WOODS, ADC #108514, Plaintiff, v. PAMELA F. COOK, Correctional Sergeant; et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 555 Prison Condition: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Demetrius Leki Woods, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Pamela F Cook, Defendant, represented by Brett Wesley Taylor , Arkansas Attorney General's Office.

Jared Byers, Defendant, represented by Brett Wesley Taylor , Arkansas Attorney General's Office.

William Straughn, Defendant, represented by Brett Wesley Taylor , Arkansas Attorney General's Office.

Jackson, Defendant, represented by Brett Wesley Taylor , Arkansas Attorney General's Office.

Wendy Kelley, Defendant, represented by Brett Wesley Taylor , Arkansas Attorney General's Office.

Dale Marshal Reed, Defendant, represented by Brett Wesley Taylor , Arkansas Attorney General's Office.

Linda Gibson, Defendant, represented by Brett Wesley Taylor , Arkansas Attorney General's Office.

Daniels, Defendant, represented by Brett Wesley Taylor , Arkansas Attorney General's Office.


ORDER

KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 29). No objections have been filed. 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. 29).

It is therefore ordered that:

1. The Clerk amend the docket to reflect the full and correct names of defendants Jared Byers and Vernon Robertson (Dkt. No. 12, at 1).

2. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on exhaustion is granted (Dkt. No. 23).

3. Plaintiff Demetrius Woods' claims against separate defendant Vernon Robertson are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

4. Defendants' motion for an extension of time to file dispositive motions on the issue of exhaustion in the light of the expected addition of a new defendant is premature and is denied at this time (Dkt. No. 23, at 2).

5. 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.

So ordered.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases