From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Dec 21, 2012
No. 5:12-cv-409-DPM-HDY (E.D. Ark. Dec. 21, 2012)

Opinion

No. 5:12-cv-409-DPM-HDY

12-21-2012

JAMES EDWARD SMITH ADC #103093 PLAINTIFF v. SAMMY D. JOHNSON, CO-I, Pine Bluff Unit, ADC; T. DOBBS, Varner Unit, ADC; DOUGLAS E. BOULTINGHOUSE, Lt., Varner Unit, ADC; and JUSTINE M. MINOR, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC DEFENDANTS


ORDER

No one has objected to Magistrate Judge H. David Young's Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Document No. 4. Having reviewed for clear errors of fact on the face of the record, FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (Advisory Committee Notes to 1983 Addition), and for legal error, the Court adopts the proposal as modified: Smith's failure-to-protect claims against Boultinghouse and Minor are dismissed without prejudice because he could fill the gap about their involvement by amendment; his potential conditions-of-confinement claim is dismissed without prejudice for the same reason; the legal defects in Smith's false-disciplinary and due-process claims cannot be fixed by amendment, and those claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice.

So Ordered.

____________

D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Smith v. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Dec 21, 2012
No. 5:12-cv-409-DPM-HDY (E.D. Ark. Dec. 21, 2012)
Case details for

Smith v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:JAMES EDWARD SMITH ADC #103093 PLAINTIFF v. SAMMY D. JOHNSON, CO-I, Pine…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

Date published: Dec 21, 2012

Citations

No. 5:12-cv-409-DPM-HDY (E.D. Ark. Dec. 21, 2012)