LeFors v. Langston et al

Filing 142

ORDER adopting 90 Proposed Findings and Recommendations as this Court's findings in all respects. Nothing in the magistrate judge's orders denying Plaintiff's motion for stay and appointment of counsel is clearly erroneous or contra ry to law. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff requests reconsideration, it is denied. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 1/30/2015. (jak) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/30/2015: # 1 Main Document - Correct, and the docket entry was modified to correct the file date and the signature date to 1/30/2015.) (thd).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
HERMAN H. LEFORS, JR.,
ODOC #112524
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 3:14-cv-00138-KGB-JJV

DAN LANGSTON, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 90), as well as plaintiff’s objections (Dkt.
No. 101). After carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the record,
the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby
are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. The Court
notes that plaintiff’s claims, apparently made for the first time in his objections, that defendants
may delete, modify, or improperly store his medical information does not constitute a threat of
irreparable harm. Plaintiff’s claims are speculative, and he provides no facts or evidence to
support that defendants can, have, or will delete, modify, or improperly store his medical
information.
Also before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to take interlocutory appeal of the denial of his
motion to stay and appoint counsel (Dkt. No. 120). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has
previously exercised jurisdiction over non-final orders denying appointment of counsel in 42
U.S.C. § 1983 cases. See Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2013); Nelson v. Shuffman, 476
F,3d 635 (8th Cir. 2007). Here, because plaintiff has not filed a notice of appeal or taken the
other necessary steps to take an interlocutory appeal, the Court construes plaintiff’s motion as a
motion to appeal to the district judge or, in other words, as a motion for reconsideration of the

magistrate judge’s denials of counsel (Dkt. No. 120). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district
court may reconsider a magistrate judge’s order on non-dispositive pretrial matters where it has
been shown clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Ferguson v. United States, 484 F.3d 1068,
1076 (8th Cir. 2007). Nothing in the magistrate judge’s orders denying plaintiff’s motion for
stay and appointment of counsel is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, to the
extent plaintiff requests reconsideration, it is denied.
SO ORDERED this the 29th day of January, 2015.

________________________________
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2