Mallory v. Bland et al
Filing
49
ORDER approving and adopting 40 Recommendation as this Court's findings in its entirety; granting 34 Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment; dismissing, without prejudice, Mr. Mallory's claims regarding his medical care pr ovided by the Defendants between 01/27/2018 and 07/04/2019, based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and dismissing, without prejudice, claims regarding Defendant Bland's failure to refer Mr. Mallory to an outside provider at his 07/05/2019 encounter with her and his claim that the Defendant failed to renew his ibuprofen prescription, based on a failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 09/08/2020. (ajt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
MARLON MALLORY,
ADC #142660
V.
PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-105-JM-BD
ESTELLA BLAND, et al.
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
The Court has received a Recommendation for dismissal of some of Mr. Mallory’s
claims. The parties have not filed objections. After careful review of the file, the Court
concludes that the Recommendation should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted as
this Court’s findings in its entirety.
The Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 34) is
GRANTED. Mr. Mallory’s claims regarding his medical care provided by the Defendants
between January 27, 2018 and July 4, 2019 are DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on
a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In addition, claims regarding Defendant
Bland’s failure to refer Mr. Mallory to an outside provider at his July 5, 2019 encounter
with her and his claim that the Defendants failed to renew his ibuprofen prescription are
DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on a failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of September, 2020.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?