Williams v. Turn Key Health et al

Filing 16

ORDER approving and adopting 10 Partial Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects; allowing Plaintiff to proceed with his Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Clark in her personal capacity; dismissing, without prejudice, Plaintiff's official capacity claims against Defendant Clark and his claims against Defendant Turn Key Health; directing the Clerk to terminate Turn Key Health as a party to this action; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 4/25/2024. (ldb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
JOSEPH WILLIAMS
#26763-009
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 4:23-CV-00513-LPR-BBM

TURN KEY HEALTH, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Partial Recommended Disposition (PRD) submitted by United
States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray (Doc. 10). No objections have been filed, and the time to
do so has expired. After a de novo review of the PRD and careful consideration of the case record,
the Court hereby approves and adopts the PRD in its entirety as this Court’s findings and
conclusions in all respects.1
Accordingly, Plaintiff may proceed with his Fourteenth Amendment deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Clark in her personal capacity.
Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendant Clark and his claims against Defendant Turn
Key Health are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted. The Clerk is directed to terminate Turn Key Health as a party to this action. The Court
certifies, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of April 2024.
________________________________
LEE P. RUDOFSKY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

The Court is not certain it agrees with Judge Ray that Spann v. Roper, 453 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2006) applies here
because the allegations don’t make clear that a large dose of pills were given to the Plaintiff. But it’s a close enough
call to let the Complaint pass screening and deal with the issue either on a motion to dismiss or at summary judgment.