Odom v. Banks et al

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING PARTIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 38 Partial Report and Recommendations; granting 16 Motion to Dismiss; and, denying as moot 33 Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief, and 36 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/12/2012. (dmn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION MICHAEL LAYNE ODOM, ADC # 98676 v. PLAINTIFF No.5:11-cv-260-DPM JIMMY BANKS, Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; ANTWON EMSWELLER, Lt., Varner Unit, ADC; STEPHEN HUMPHREY, Radiologist, Quality Mobile X-ray Services; and DOES, Jane & John, ADC DEFENDANTS ORDER Magistrate Judge H. David Young entered Proposed Findings and Recommendations in this case, Document No. 38, to which adom objected, Document No. 43. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, FED. R. Cry. P. 72(b)(3), the Court adopts the partial recommended disposition as its own. Even if Humphrey (a radiologist) made a false statement about adom's x-ray, that alone would not violate the Constitution. Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). More importantly, adom has not described any actions by Humphrey sufficient to hold the radiologist liable for the alleged wrongdoing of the named prison officials. Humphrey's motion to dismiss, Document No. 16, is granted. Odom's claims against Humphrey are dismissed with prejudice. Humphrey's motions for leave to file a reply brief, Document No. 33, and for a protective order, Document No. 36, are denied as moot. So Ordered. -2­

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?