Richardson v. McGinnis

E.D. Arkansas

Richardson v. McGinnis

DecidedApril 19, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00082

StatusUnknown

This text of Richardson v. McGinnis (Richardson v. McGinnis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richardson v. McGinnis, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION ANGELA RICHARDSON ADC #712575 PLAINTIFF Vv. No. 3:22-cv-82-DPM

DENNIS MCGINNIS, Sgt., McPherson Unit, ADC DEFENDANT

ORDER On de novo review, the Court adopts as modified the recommendation, Doc 24, and overrules Richardson’s objections, Doc. 28. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court declines to adopt the first full paragraph on page eight and the first sentence of the first full paragraph on page nine of the recommendation. Richardson pleaded enough facts to allow the inference that McGinnis treated her differently because of her race. Compare Powells v. Minnehaha County Sheriff Department, 198 F.3d 711, 712 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). The alleged unequal treatment, however, was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute unconstitutional race discrimination. Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2007). Richardson therefore fails to state a claim. McGinnis’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. 15, is granted. Richardson’s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court recommends that the dismissal count as a strike for the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Any in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). So Ordered. ohh fe D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 19 Ayal 2022

Dm

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION ANGELA RICHARDSON ADC #712575 PLAINTIFF Vv. No. 3:22-cv-82-DPM

DENNIS MCGINNIS, Sgt., McPherson Unit, ADC DEFENDANT

ORDER On de novo review, the Court adopts as modified the recommendation, Doc 24, and overrules Richardson’s objections, Doc. 28. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court declines to adopt the first full paragraph on page eight and the first sentence of the first full paragraph on page nine of the recommendation. Richardson pleaded enough facts to allow the inference that McGinnis treated her differently because of her race. Compare Powells v. Minnehaha County Sheriff Department, 198 F.3d 711, 712 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). The alleged unequal treatment, however, was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute unconstitutional race discrimination. Lewis v. Jacks, 486 F.3d 1025, 1028 (8th Cir. 2007). Richardson therefore fails to state a claim. McGinnis’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Doc. 15, is granted. Richardson’s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court recommends that the dismissal count as a strike for the purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). Any in forma pauperis appeal would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). So Ordered. ohh fe D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 19 Ayal 2022

Dm

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Richardson v. McGinnis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-mcginnis-ared-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack