Murphy v. Hughes et al

Filing 55

ORDER adopting 54 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; granting 41 motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's claim Hughes provided her with inadequate medical care for degenerative disc disease in her knee, back, and neck is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's claim that Williams failed to take corrective action after reviewing her grievances about the medical care she received for degenerative disc disease in her knee, back, and neck is dismissed with prejudice. All other claims raised in her substituted complaint are dismissed without prejudice. It is CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 4/29/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
BATESVILLE DIVISION

LISA MURPHY,
ADC #760343
v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 1:14CV0006 JLH/JTR

DR. JOSEPH HUGHES, ADC Doctor;
and BERNARD WILLIAMS, ADC Supervisor

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. No objections have been filed. After careful review,
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:
1.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Document #41.

2.

Plaintiff’s claim Hughes provided her with inadequate medical care for degenerative

disc disease in her knee, back, and neck is dismissed with prejudice.
3.

Plaintiff’s claim that Williams failed to take corrective action after reviewing her

grievances about the medical care she received for degenerative disc disease in her knee, back, and
neck is dismissed with prejudice.
4.

All other claims raised in her substituted complaint are dismissed without prejudice.

5.

It is CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis

appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2015.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE