Hill v. WellPath Medical Corporation et al

Filing 18

ORDER directing Mr. Hill to provide the Court either full names, first names, or the first initial of the first names for Defendants Kent, Miles, Whitfield, Dukes, Pitts, Wombley, Stringfello, and Anderson; and notifying Mr. Hill that his failure to comply with this Court's Order may result in the dismissal of his claims against these Defendants. Signed by Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin on 6/3/2024. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
ADAM HILL
ADC #601559
V.

PLAINTIFF
NO. 4:24-cv-00284-JM-ERE

WELLPATH MEDICAL CORPORATION, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Adam Hill, an Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”)
inmate, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 2, 9. The Court
previously determined that, for screening purposes,1 Mr. Hill has stated a medical
deliberate indifference claim against Defendants Parsons, Seamster, Kent, Miles,
Hoffman, Hurst, Griffin, WellPath, Dukes, Whitfield, Pitts, Wombley, Huff,
Stringfello, Horan, Payne, Straughn, Culclager, and Anderson.2 Doc. 15. Although
the Court has contacted counsel for the Medical Defendants in an attempt to serve

1

Screening is mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires federal
courts to screen prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer,
or employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or a portion
thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). When making this
determination, the Court must accept the truth of the factual allegations contained in the
complaint, and it may consider the documents attached to the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976, 979 (8th Cir. 2011).
2

The Court previously dismissed Mr. Hills’s claims against Conley, Smith, Saih,
Wyman, Culp, Reed, Billingsly, Hutchinson, and Rester. Doc. 15.

Defendants Kent, Miles, Whitfield, Dukes, Pitts, Wombley, Stringfello, and
Anderson, the Court needs additional, identifying information to attempt service on
these Defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Within 30 days, Mr. Hill must provide the Court either full names, first

names, or the first initial of the first names for Defendants Kent, Miles, Whitfield,
Dukes, Pitts, Wombley, Stringfello, and Anderson
2.

Mr. Hill’s failure to comply with this Court’s Order may result in the

dismissal of his claims against these Defendants.3
So Ordered 3 June 2024.

___________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Mr. Hill is reminded that he is responsible for providing sufficient identifying
information and valid service addresses for each Defendant. Any Defendant who is not
served within 90 days may be dismissed, without prejudice, from the lawsuit.
2