Meadows v. Anderson et al
ORDER ADOPTING 103 the recommended disposition; granting 81 the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismissing, with prejudice, plaintiff's claims against Bobbie Allison, Donald Anderson, Corizon Inc., Jennifer Simmons, and Brenda Tetrick; and denying as moot 105 the plaintiff's motion for ruling. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 11/7/2014. (kdr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TERESE MARIE MEADOWS
NO: 1:12CV00089 BSM
DONALD ANDERSON, et al.
The recommended disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Beth
Deere has been received, along with objections filed by the plaintiff. An evidentiary hearing
was held on November 5, 2014, in which plaintiff’s testimony was received and the parties
were given an opportunity to clarify the issues and their positions. After hearing from the
plaintiff and carefully reviewing the entire record, de novo, it is concluded that the
recommended disposition should be adopted.
The recommended disposition is adopted on the merits of defendants’ motion for
summary judgment because the evidence in the record is undisputed that plaintiff’s medical
condition worsened at a rapid pace and that defendants promptly cared for her. The record
is devoid of facts indicating that defendants’ actions were so inappropriate as to constitute
deliberate indifference. Defendants are therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants [Doc. No. 81] is
granted, and plaintiff’s claims against Bobbie Allison, Donald Anderson, Corizon Inc.,
Jennifer Simmons, and Brenda Tetrick are dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s motion for ruling [Doc. No. 105] is denied as moot.
DATED this 7th day of November 2014.
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?