Doering v. Well Path et al
ORDER approving and adopting 6 Partial Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects; allowing Plaintiff to proceed with his claim that Defendants Horan, Parrot, Culclager, and Wellpath LLC are failing to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care for hepatitis C; dismissing, without prejudice, all other claims; dismissing, without prejudice, Defendant Lake; 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 11/14/2023. (ldb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WELLPATH, et al.
The Court has reviewed the Partial Recommended Disposition (PRD) submitted by United
States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and the Plaintiff’s Objections.1 After a de novo review of the
PRD, as well as careful consideration of Plaintiff’s Objections and the case record, the Court
hereby approves and adopts the PRD in its entirety as this Court’s findings and conclusions in all
Accordingly, Plaintiff may proceed with his claim that Defendants Horan, Parrot,
Culclager, and Wellpath LLC are failing to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical
care for hepatitis C. All other claims are DISMISSED without prejudice as improperly joined.
Defendant Lake is DISMISSED without prejudice as a Defendant in this case. 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 14th day of November 2023.
LEE P. RUDOFSKY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Docs. 6 & 9. Plaintiff’s “Objections” are not focused on the PRD. Rather, they are focused on other decisions made
by the Magistrate Judge. Those other decisions are not in front of the Court for review. In any event, the Court will
proceed as if relevant objections were filed.
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?