Porter v. Smith et al, No. 2:2017cv00166 - Document 70 (E.D. Ark. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 68 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; granting 57 motion for summary judgment; dismissing with prejudice plaintiff Darnell Charles Porter's failure to protect claims against Officer Smith, Officer Daniel, and Officer Wash ington; certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith; and dismissing Officer Smith, Officer Daniel, and Officer Washington as parties to this action. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 7/11/2019. (jbh)

Download PDF
Porter v. Smith et al Doc. 70 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION DARNELL CHARLES PORTER, ADC #116186 v. PLAINTIFF Case No. 2:17-cv-00166-KGB-JJV TEVIN SMITH, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 68-1). No objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations have been filed, and the time for filing objections has passed. After review, this Court adopts the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Officer Tevin Smith, Officer Yolanda Daniel, and Officer Anita Washington (Dkt. No. 57). Accordingly, the Court dismisses with prejudice plaintiff Darnell Charles Porter’s failure to protect claims against Officer Smith, Officer Daniel, and Officer Washington. The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. The Court dismisses Officer Smith, Officer Daniel, and Officer Washington as parties to this action. So ordered this 11th day of July 2019. _______________________________ Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge Dockets.Justia.com

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.