Borrero v. USA

Filing 70

ORDER overruling 67 Objections and adopting 66 Recommendation as supplemented. The United States' 53 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Borrero's 41 & 48 Motions for Partial Summary Judgment are denied. 69 Motion to strike is denied as moot. The complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/8/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EASTERN DIVISION
LAZARO DESPAIGNE BORRERO,
Reg #12973-074

v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 2:16-cv-61-DPM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEFENDANT

ORDER

The Court overrules Borrero' s objections, Ng 6 7, and, on de nova review,
adopts Magistrate Judge Volpe's recommendation, Ng 66, as supplemented.
FED. R. Crv. P. 72(b)(3). This Court lacks FTCA jurisdiction over Barrera's
hernia-related claim because he didn't raise it in his administrative claim.

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Borrero does not present the
compelling circumstances required by law for appointment of a medical
expert to assist in his case. Rueben v. United States, 2014 WL 5460574 (E.D.
Ark. 2014). And Barrera's understandable frustration with the delays in, and
course of, his medical care is insufficient to create disputed material fact
issues on whether the United States acted negligently.
The United States' motion for summary judgment, Ng 53, is granted.
Barrera's motions for partial summary judgment, Ng 41 & 48, are denied.

Borrero's motion to strike, Ng 69, is denied as moot. The complaint will be
dismissed with prejudice.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2-