From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Hurst

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
Sep 8, 2010
5:09CV00027JMM/JTK (E.D. Ark. Sep. 8, 2010)

Opinion

5:09CV00027JMM/JTK.

September 8, 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. Further, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's June 7, 2010 Order dismissing Defendants Ford-Scott, S. Vance, Rushing, Hawkins and Ed Adams. Plaintiff has failed to provide any legal reason to reconsider the Order. Accordingly,

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that this action is hereby ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. Plaintiff may file a motion to reopen this action upon obtaining information concerning Defendant King's address, his ability to accept service, and to attend a trial in this matter. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket # 122) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Docket # 120) is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of September, 2010.


Summaries of

Young v. Hurst

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division
Sep 8, 2010
5:09CV00027JMM/JTK (E.D. Ark. Sep. 8, 2010)
Case details for

Young v. Hurst

Case Details

Full title:GUY B. YOUNG, ADC #124069 PLAINTIFF v. MIKE HURST, et al. DEFENDANTS

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

Date published: Sep 8, 2010

Citations

5:09CV00027JMM/JTK (E.D. Ark. Sep. 8, 2010)