Vanpelt v. Oxner et al

Filing 170

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING 165 RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION as this Court's findings in its entirety; granting 149 motion for summary judgment; dismissing with prejudice Mr. Vanpelt's claims against the County Defendants; granting 162 motion for voluntary dismissal; dismissing without prejudice his claims against the Medical Defendants; denying as moot 152 the Medical Defendants' motion for summary judgment; denying as moot 169 Medical Defendants' motion for enforcement of 148 order. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 08/19/2014. (rhm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
MARIO KEITH VANPELT
ADC #119581
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 1:11-cv-00019-KGB-BD

JACK OXNER, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has received the Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) filed
by Magistrate Judge Beth Deere (Dkt. No. 165).

After careful review of the

Recommendation and the timely objections filed by defendants Corizon, LLC, Christi
Taylor, Marybeth Floyd, Dr. Don Ball, and Quibble Butler (the “Medical Defendants”)
(Dkt. No. 166), including a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the
Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as this Court’s findings
in its entirety.

The Court grants Jack Oxner and James Guynes’s (the “County

Defendants”) motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 149) and dismisses with prejudice
Mr. Vanpelt’s claims against the County Defendants. The Court grants Mr. Vanpelt’s
motion for voluntary dismissal of the Medical Defendants (Dkt. No. 162) and dismisses
without prejudice his claims against the Medical Defendants. The Court denies as moot
the Medical Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 152).
The Court writes separately to address the Medical Defendants’ request that,
should Mr. Vanpelt refile his claims, the Medical Defendants be granted their costs and

attorney’s fees, as allowed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d). Rule 41(d)
provides that,
[i]f a plaintiff who previously dismissed an action in any court files an
action based on or including the same claim against the same defendant, the
court: (1) may order the plaintiff to pay all or part of the costs of that
previous action; and (2) may stay the proceeding until the plaintiff has
complied.
The Court recommends that, should Mr. Vanpelt refile his claims, the court in which he
refiles address the Medical Defendants’ request for costs and attorney’s fees under Rule
41(d), should the Medical Defendants renew their request at the time of refiling.
Also before the Court is the Medical Defendants’ motion for enforcement of order
(Dkt. No. 169). By prior Order, Judge Deere held that Mr. Vanpelt must reimburse the
Medical Defendants for their costs associated with the preparation of the motion for
sanctions (Dkt. No. 148). Judge Deere’s prior Order remains in effect. Given the current
procedural posture of this matter, the Court denies as moot the Medical Defendants’
pending motion for enforcement of order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this the 19th day of August, 2014.

________________________________
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2