From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Rectenwald

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
Jun 28, 2010
5:10CV00030JMM/JTK (E.D. Ark. Jun. 28, 2010)

Opinion

5:10CV00030JMM/JTK.

June 28, 2010


ORDER


The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney. After a review of those proposed findings and recommendations, and the timely objections received thereto, as well as a de novo review of the record, the Court adopts them in their entirety. Accordingly,

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Kelley, Gibson, Ewell, Hughes, and White, is GRANTED in part, with respect to plaintiff's allegations against defendants Kelley, Gibson, and White, and DENIED with respect to plaintiff's allegations of failure to protect against defendants Ewell and Hughes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hill v. Rectenwald

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
Jun 28, 2010
5:10CV00030JMM/JTK (E.D. Ark. Jun. 28, 2010)
Case details for

Hill v. Rectenwald

Case Details

Full title:JESSIE HILL, PLAINTIFF ADC #104136 v. DR. ROBERT RECTENWALD, et al…

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

Date published: Jun 28, 2010

Citations

5:10CV00030JMM/JTK (E.D. Ark. Jun. 28, 2010)