Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00169/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00169-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

DAVIS DON CARPENTER, ADC #120443 PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 5:19-cv-00169-KGB-PSH

WENDY KELLEY, Director, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court are the June 21, 2019, Proposed Findings and Partial Recommendation

(“First Recommendation”) and October 29, 2019, Proposed Findings and Partial Recommendation

(“Second Recommendation”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris (Dkt. 

Nos. 11, 25). For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts both of Judge Harris’ Partial 

Recommended Dispositions.

I. June 21, 2019, Proposed Findings And Partial Recommendation

In her First Recommendation, Judge Harris recommends that plaintiff Davis Don 

Carpenter’s motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction be denied. Mr. 

Carpenter has filed timely objections to this First Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12). After careful 

consideration of the First Recommendation, Mr. Carpenter’s objections, and a de novo review of 

the record, the Court finds no reason to alter or reject Judge Harris’ First Recommendation.

The Court writes separately to address Mr. Carpenter’s objections. Mr. Carpenter argues 

that he would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction because his claims for 

damages would be moot if he is transferred to another facility. Contrary to Mr. Carpenter’s 

assertions, however, a transfer would not moot his claims for monetary damages against 

defendants in their individual capacities. Therefore, the Court agrees with Judge Harris that Mr. 

Carpenter has not met his burden to show that he faces irreparable harm without an injunction.

Case 5:19-cv-00169-KGB Document 36 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 2
2

Accordingly, the Court adopts the First Recommendation in its entirety (Dkt. No. 11). Mr. 

Carpenter’s motion and amended motion for an emergency ex parte temporary restraining order 

and/or preliminary injunction are denied (Dkt. Nos. 2, 7).

II. October 29, 2019, Proposed Findings And Partial Recommendation

In her Second Recommendation, Judge Harris recommends that Mr. Carpenter’s claims 

against the Doe defendants be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 4(m) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. No. 25). No objections have been filed to this Second 

Recommendation, and the deadline for filing objections has since passed. After careful 

consideration, the Court concludes that the October 29, 2019, Second Recommendation should be, 

and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety (Dkt. No. 25). The Court dismisses without 

prejudice Mr. Carpenter’s claims against the Doe defendants.

III. Conclusion

In sum, the Court adopts both the June 21, 2019, and the October 29, 2019, Proposed 

Findings and Partial Recommendation (Dkt. Nos. 11, 25). The Court denies Mr. Carpenter’s 

motion and amended motion for an emergency ex parte temporary restraining order and/or 

preliminary injunction (Dkt. Nos. 2, 7). The Court also dismisses without prejudice Mr. 

Carpenter’s claims against the Doe defendants.

It is so ordered this 22nd of January, 2020.

_________________________________

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00169-KGB Document 36 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2