Lewis v. Green et al

Filing 78

ORDER adopting 71 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. It is therefore ordered that: (1) Defendants' 56 motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and den ied in part. (2) Lewis's claims against Green, Gardner, Davis, and Horton are dismissed without prejudice due to lack of exhaustion. (3) Lewis may proceed with his inadequate medical care and corrective inaction claims against Ball, Hughes, Butler, Strickland, Yarbrough, and Harris. (4) 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 6/5/2014. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
ARTHUR C. LEWIS, JR., ADC #66947
v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 2:13CV00073 JLH/JTR

CHARLOTTE GREEN, Registered Nurse,
East Arkansas Regional Unit, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial Disposition submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed objections.1 After carefully considering these
documents and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court concludes that the Proposed
Findings and Recommended Partial 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 partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.

Document #56.
2.

Lewis’s claims against Green, Gardner, Davis, and Horton are dismissed without prejudice

due to lack of exhaustion.
3.

Lewis may proceed with his inadequate medical care and corrective inaction claims against

Ball, Hughes, Butler, Strickland, Yarbrough, and Harris.
4.

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 5th day of June, 2014.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Arthur Lewis’s motion for an extension of time is denied as moot because Lewis has filed his
objections and the Court has considered them. Document #74.