From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanders v. Hobbs

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
Oct 22, 2010
No. 5:10CV00281 JLH/JTR (E.D. Ark. Oct. 22, 2010)

Summary

concluding that plaintiff did not have a federal statutory or constitutional right to demand an internal affairs investigation

Summary of this case from Ladd v. Heath

Opinion

No. 5:10CV00281 JLH/JTR.

October 22, 2010


ORDER


The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed objections. After carefully considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. Pursuant to the screening function mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this case is DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

2. Dismissal of this action CONSTITUTES a "strike," as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith.

Dated this 22nd day of October, 2010.


Summaries of

Sanders v. Hobbs

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
Oct 22, 2010
No. 5:10CV00281 JLH/JTR (E.D. Ark. Oct. 22, 2010)

concluding that plaintiff did not have a federal statutory or constitutional right to demand an internal affairs investigation

Summary of this case from Ladd v. Heath
Case details for

Sanders v. Hobbs

Case Details

Full title:COREY BRIAN SANDERS ADC #113737 PLAINTIFF v. ARTIS RAY HOBBS, Director…

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

Date published: Oct 22, 2010

Citations

No. 5:10CV00281 JLH/JTR (E.D. Ark. Oct. 22, 2010)

Citing Cases

Ladd v. Heath

As an initial matter, there is no federal constitutional right to due process in an IAD proceeding against a…