Cincoski v. Richard et al
ORDER ADOPTING 159 Report and Recommendations in their entirety; therefore, Dr. Richard's Second Motion for Summary Judgment 136 is GRANTED; defts Cash, Daniels, and Rogers' Motion for Summary Judgment 82 is GRANTED; pltf's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 149 is DENIED; all pending motions are rendered MOOT; pltf's cause of action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 3/12/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
ADC # 143538
RICHARD, Dr., Grimes Unit, Arkansas
Department of Correction; et al.
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted
by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and the Plaintiff’s objections and declaration. After
carefully considering the objections and declaration, and after making a de novo review of the
relevant portion of the record, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court concludes that the Proposed
Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their
entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
Dr. Richard’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 136) is GRANTED;
Defendants Cash, Daniels, and Rogers’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No.
82) is GRANTED;
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 149) is
All pending motions are rendered MOOT;
Plaintiff’s cause of action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
DATED this 12th day of March 2012.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?