J. Thomas Ray

“Defendant Ramsey's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 62) is GRANTED, and the cruel and unusual punishment claim raised against her is DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, while the retaliation claim raised against her is DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

“Defendant Horn, Hopkins, and Cowell's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 65) is GRANTED, and all claims raised against them are DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE.”

“the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Robert Andexler, Vivalon Nelson, and Curtis Williams [Doc. No. 47] is granted, and Plaintiff Jan Montala's claims against all three Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.”

“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (docket entry #54) is DENIED.”

“Petitioner's Motion for Relief Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) (docket entry #14) is DENIED.”

“the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (docket entry #1), is DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, so that Petitioner may seek authorization from the Eighth Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(3)(A), to file a successive habeas petition.”

Ray's R&R recommending sua sponte dismissal of a pro se prisoner equal-protection complaint at 28 U.S.C. 1915 screening for failure to state a claim; District Judge Billy Roy Wilson adopted it on de novo review (over the plaintiff's objections and amended complaint) and dismissed without prejudice, counting the dismissal as a 1915(g) 'strike'. This screening dismissal did not resolve a party motion. The recommendation was submitted on 2017-04-21 and adopted on 2017-05-23, a span of 32 days.

“Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Summary judgment is GRANTED to Defendant Clayton Edwards on Mr. Humes's individual capacity claim against Mr. Edwards. Summary judgment is GRANTED to all Defendants on Mr. Humes's official capacity claims against them. Summary judgment is GRANTED to White County as to all claims against it. Mr. Humes's state-law claim for ‘medical negligence’ is DISMISSED without prejudice. On the other hand, summary judgment is DENIED to Ms. Gray and Lt. Jones on Mr. Humes's individual capacity deliberate-indifference claims against them. These claims PROCEED to a jury trial.”

“All claims asserted in the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docs. 1 and 12, are DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE”

“Petitioner's pending Motion for Affirmative Relief (Doc. 34), Motion to Appear for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 36), Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 37), Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 38), and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 39) are DENIED as MOOT.”

“[Doc. No. 48] is granted, and this case is dismissed with prejudice.”

“Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 26, is GRANTED.”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Hulum’s request for relief (docket entry #2) is DENIED and the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED.”

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this case is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991).”

“judgment [Doc. No. 31] is granted, and Hendley’s claims are dismissed with prejudice.”