McFall v. Southern Health Partners Inc
Filing
42
Order approving and adopting 27 Proposed Findings and Recommendations in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 12 motion to dismiss; and denying Mr. McFall's 28 motion to strike. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 09/01/2015. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
RONNY RAY MCFALL
ADC #654721
v.
PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:14-cv-00716-KGB
SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS INC.,
and TIFFANY EICHLER
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by
United States Magistrate Judge Jerry W. Cavaneau (Dkt. No. 27) and the objections filed by
plaintiff Ronny Ray McFall (Dkt. No. 30). After carefully considering the objections and
making a de novo review of the record in this case, 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. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies
in part defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 12). The Court grants the motion as to Mr.
McFall’s claims against defendants in their official capacities and dismisses those claims without
prejudice. The Court denies the motion in all other respects.
Also before the Court is Mr. McFall’s motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss and
brief in support (Dkt. No. 28), to which defendants have responded (Dkt. No. 29) and Mr.
McFall has replied (Dkt. No. 32). To the extent Mr. McFall requests that this Court consider his
motion to strike defendants’ motion to dismiss and brief in support as an amendment to his
objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, this Court has done so. Mr. McFall
argues in his motion to strike that defendants’ motion to dismiss and brief in support do not take
into account Mr. McFall’s motion to amend in which he seeks to clarify that he alleges both
official and personal capacity claims (Dkt. No. 25). This is not a basis for striking defendants’
motion and brief, and Judge Cavaneau’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations took into
account Mr. McFall’s motion to amend clarifying that Mr. McFall alleges both official and
personal capacity claims. Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. McFall’s motion to strike (Dkt. No.
28), and the Court has considered these arguments when evaluating the Proposed Findings and
Recommendations, Mr. McFall’s objections, and the de novo record.
It is therefore ordered that:
1.
The Court grants in part and denies in part defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt.
No. 12). The Court grants the motion as to Mr. McFall’s claims against defendants in their
official capacities and dismisses those claims without prejudice. The Court denies the motion in
all other respects.
2.
The Court denies Mr. McFall’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 28).
SO ORDERED this the 1st day of September, 2015.
______________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge
2
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?