Scharnhorst v. Cantrell
This text of Scharnhorst v. Cantrell (Scharnhorst v. Cantrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JOHN WILLIAM SCHARNHORST, III PLAINTIFF
V. CASE NO. 5:22-CV-5176
CHIEF DEPUTY JAY CANTRELL; MAJOR RANDALL DENZER; CPL. TOM MULVANEY; CPL. SAM CAUDLE; DEPUTY TYLER BECK; DEPUTY ROBBIE PHIPPS; DEPUTY RAINES; SGT. WELCHEL; CPL. PRESTON CARPENTER; DEPUTY ZACHARY MISENHEIMER; DEPUTY COLE SELF; CPL. DOMINIC NUNZIATO; DEPUTY MITCHELL REDMOND; DEPUTY ERIC FRYE; DEPUTY LOGAN EDGE; CPL. LANDON CRADDUCK; DEPUTY GABRIEL NUNZIATO; SGT. CARLOS PINEDA; and JAMES LEEN DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Comes on for consideration the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) filed in this case on December 14, 2022, by the Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Fourteen (14) days have passed without objections being filed by the parties. The Court has reviewed this case and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds that the Report and Recommendation is proper and is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. New assertions of mistreatment or retaliation that are entirely different from the claims raised in a complaint cannot provide the basis for a temporary restraining order. See Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 23) is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED on this 4th day of January, 2023. /s/ Timothy L. Brooks TIMOTHY L. BROOKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Scharnhorst v. Cantrell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scharnhorst-v-cantrell-arwd-2023.