Burns v. Kelley et al
| Roy D Burns |
| Wendy Kelley, D Yarbough, Does and C Davis |
| 2:2011cv00086 |
| May 2, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Helena Office |
| Lee |
| Brian S. Miller |
| H. David Young |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
71
ORDER adopting 70 the proposed findings and recommended disposition; granting 66 Defendant Dottie Yarbrough's motion for summary judgment and dismissing 2 plaintiff Roy Burns' complaint, without prejudice. It is certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an in forma pauperis appeal would be frivolous and would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 12/12/2012. (kdr)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER adopting the proposed findings and recommended partial dispositions; dismissing Burns's claims against defendant Chiquita Davis, without prejudice; denying 37 Defendant Dottie Yarbrough's motion to dismiss; and dismissing Burns's claims against the Doe defendants, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 12/29/11. (hph)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER directing pltf to provide, no later than 30 days after the entry of this Order, the names of the Doe Defendants, along with a brief statement of his claims against them. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 9/20/11. (vjt)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arkansas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
