Allen v. Long et al

Filing 23

ORDER approving and adopting 22 Partial Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings and conclusions in all respects; allowing Plaintiff to proceed with his medical deliberate-indifference claims against Sheriff Long, Admi nistrator Dodson, and Nurse Lowery in their individual capacities only; dismissing, without prejudice, Plaintiff's due process, conditions-of-confinement, retaliation, conspiracy, and official-capacity claims; instructing the Clerk to terminate Nurse Taylor 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 7/8/2024. (ldb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION MICHAEL EDWARD ALLEN ADC #176724 v. PLAINTIFF No. 4:23-cv-00755-LPR-BBM BRANDON LONG, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has reviewed the Partial Recommended Disposition (PRD) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Benecia B. Moore (Doc. 22). No objections have been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. After a de novo review of the PRD, along with careful consideration of the entire 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 medical deliberate-indifference claims against Sheriff Long, Administrator Dodson, and Nurse Lowery in their individual capacities only. Plaintiff’s due process, conditions-of-confinement, retaliation, conspiracy, and official-capacity claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk is directed to terminate Nurse Taylor 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 8th day of July 2024. _______________________________ LEE P. RUDOFSKY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 The Court may have a very slight disagreement with the PRD’s characterization of the various ways in which a plaintiff can show medical deliberate-indifference. But that disagreement does not affect the correctness of the PRD’s conclusion that (for screening purposes) Plaintiff has stated viable medical deliberate-indifference claims.

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?