Doering v. Well Path et al
ORDER approving and adopting 42 Partial Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects; granting 34 Separate Defendant Culclager's Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing, without p rejudice, Defendant Culclager from this lawsuit; denying as moot 16 Defendant Culclager's Motion to Dismiss; declining to adopt 23 PRD; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Sign ed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 2/7/2024. (ldb)Notice: The terminated party will no longer receive filing notifications through CM/ECF. To continue receiving filing notifications, email the Clerk of Court and request reinstatement. Please refer to the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures for Civil Filings for information about when a terminated party must be served.
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 (Doc. 42). 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.
Accordingly, Separate Defendant Culclager’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) is
GRANTED. Defendant Culclager is DISMISSED without prejudice from this lawsuit. In light of
this dismissal, the Court DENIES as moot Defendant Culclager’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16)
and declines to adopt Judge Volpe’s corresponding PRD (Doc. 23). 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
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of February 2024.
LEE P. RUDOFSKY
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?