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)

Download PDF
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

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?