Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00005/USCOURTS-ared-5_19-cv-00005-2/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

ROBERT E. WOODWARD, PLAINTIFF

ADC #0452670

v. Case No. 5:19-cv-00005-KGB

JAMES GIBSON, Warden; and

WENDY KELLEY, Director, ADC DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court are two Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United 

States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. Nos. 5, 18). Plaintiff Robert E. Woodward filed 

objections to the first Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 6). Mr. Woodward and 

defendants have filed several other documents and pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 8, 12, 19, 20). The 

Court has reviewed Judge Volpe’s two Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Mr. 

Woodward’s objections, all other filings, and the record de novo. The Court determines that Judge 

Volpe’s first Proposed Findings and Recommendations should denied as moot (Dkt. No. 5) and 

that the second Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be adopted in their entirety as 

this Court’s findings in all respects (Dkt. No. 18). 

In the first Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Judge Volpe determines that Mr. 

Woodward’s underlying complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted (Dkt. No. 5, at 5). After Judge Volpe submitted his first 

Proposed Findings and Recommendations, the parties resolved this case, and several other cases 

filed by Mr. Woodward, through settlement (Dkt. No. 8). Because the parties resolved this case 

through settlement before this Court ruled on the first Proposed Findings and Recommendations, 

the Court denies the first Proposed Findings and Recommendations as moot and will not count this 

Case 5:19-cv-00005-KGB Document 30 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 2
2

dismissal as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (Dkt. No. 5). 

In the second Proposed Findings and Recommendations, Judge Volpe recommends that 

Mr. Woodward’s motion to withdraw settlement be denied (Dkt. No. 12) and that the joint motion 

to dismiss be granted (Dkt. No. 8). Mr. Woodward filed a motion to amend judgment and a reply, 

which this Court interprets as objections to Judge Volpe’s Proposed Findings and 

Recommendations (Dkt. Nos. 19, 20). Having considered all matters presented, this Court adopts 

the second Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 18). 

It is therefore ordered that:

1. The Court denies as moot the first Proposed Findings and Recommendations, given 

the settlement the parties reached (Dkt. No. 5);

2. The Court adopts the second Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. No. 

18);

3. The Court grants the parties’ joint motion to dismiss with prejudice (Dkt. No. 8);

4. The Court denies Mr. Woodward’s motion to withdraw settlements (Dkt. No. 12);

5. The Court denies Mr. Woodward’s motion to amend judgment (Dkt. No. 19);

6. The Court dismisses with prejudice Mr. Woodward’s complaint and denies the 

relief he requests; and

7. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.

It is so ordered this 10th day of February, 2020.

____________________________________

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00005-KGB Document 30 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 2