Thompson v. Nance et al

Filing 81

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING 78 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; granting 72 motion for summary judgment; denying 77 motion to stay; denying all other pending motions as moot; dismissing this cause of action with prejudice, and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 08/22/2014. (rhm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
ERNEST W. L. THOMPSON,
ADC #500242
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 5:11-cv-00327-KGB-JJV

MELVIN NANCE

DEFENDANT
ORDER

The

Court

has

reviewed

the

Proposed

Findings

and

Recommendations

(“Recommendations”) submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe (Dkt. No. 78)
and plaintiff Ernest L. Thompson’s objections (Dkt. No. 79). After carefully considering the
objections and making a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the
Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this
Court’s findings in all respects.
Mr. Thompson cites two cases in his objections, apparently for the first time (Dkt. No.
79). See Steele v. Shah, 87 F.3d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that a finding of deliberate
indifference could be supported where a doctor discontinued plaintiff’s psychotropic medication
based on one cursory interview and without having reviewed any medical records beyond a
“Treatment Plan” and where the doctor subsequently failed to reconsider his decision after
learning of plaintiff’s suicide risk without the medication); Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1247
(11th Cir. 2003) (finding that the facts did not suggest that plaintiff’s condition was so grave that
even some considerable delay would have authorized a finding of deliberate indifference). The
Court has reviewed these cases, along with Mr. Thompson’s objections and the record. Neither

case Mr. Thompson cites is controlling on this Court, and both cases are factually different from
his case. The Court agrees with Judge Volpe’s Recommendations.
The Court also denies Mr. Thompson’s motion to stay until he has obtained the necessary
facts from defendants in response to his discovery requests, which he filed along with his
response to Dr. Nance’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 77). Before Judge Volpe
issued the Recommendations in this matter, Mr. Thompson had adequate time for discovery.
It is therefore ordered that:
1.

Dr. Nance’s motion for summary judgment is granted (Dkt. No. 72).

2.

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

3.

This cause of action is dismissed with prejudice.

4.

The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an in forma

pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good
faith.
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2014.

_____________________________________
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2