Cincoski v. Richard et al
ORDER: The Court is providing notice to the parties that consideration will be given to pleadings 82 and 86 Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and 99 Plaintiff's response to those motions. The parties may respond to this notice no later than 2/20/2012. For good cause shown 141 Defendant Richard's Motion to Deem Admitted is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe on 2/8/2012. (srw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
ADC # 143538
RICHARD, Dr., Grimes Unit, Arkansas
Department of Correction; et al.
This case was remanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for
further proceedings on four Eighth Amendment claims: 1) Plaintiff was unconstitutionally denied
requested psychiatric medications; 2) Plaintiff was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement while on suicide watch; 3) Plaintiff was denied personal hygiene items that led to
extreme pain whereby he was denied medication; and 4) Plaintiff was denied access to water in his
cell. (Doc. No. 134.)
Because the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s cause of action (Doc. No. 120) on October 5, 2011,
without considering the Motions for Summary Judgment and Response, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
56(f), the Court is providing notice to the parties that consideration will now be given to those
pleadings (Doc Nos. 82, 86, 99), as well as the pending Second Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 136). The parties may respond to this notice, if they so choose, no later than February 20,
Dr. Richard also moves to have his Statement of Indisputable Material Facts (Doc. No. 88)
deemed admitted because Plaintiff has failed to timely object to them. (Doc. No. 141). For good
cause shown, Dr. Richard’s Motion (Doc. No 141) on this point is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED this 8th day of February, 2012.
JOE J. VOLPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?