Axelson v. Corizon Medical Services Inc et al

Filing 132

ORDER ADOPTING 126 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. Defendants' 113 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Hobbs and Banks are dismissed w ithout prejudice. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Kelly are dismissed with prejudice. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 6/3/2014. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
TIM AXELSON, ADC #97108
Plaintiff,

v.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

No. 5:12CV00339-SWW-JJV

CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES
INC.; et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition
submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe and Plaintiff’s Objections. After
carefully considering the objections and making a de novo review of the relevant record, see
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended
Disposition should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court's
findings in all respects.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 113) is GRANTED.

2.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hobbs and Banks are dismissed without

prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
3.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Kelley are dismissed with prejudice.

4.

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

pauperis appeal from this Order and the accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good
faith.1
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of June 2014.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

In his objections [doc.#131], Plaintiff complains that “[t]he proof that [Judge Volpe] didn’t
even read my complaint is in the fact that he never responded to my motion for appointment of
counsel (DE: 103-0 at 10, 11)” and argues “[t]he court should rule on pending motions for counsel
before dismissing the complaint.” The Court notes, however, that that particular motion for
appointment of counsel was attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff’s brief in support [doc.#103] of his
motion for a preliminary injunction [doc.#102]–it was not properly filed or submitted as a motion
for the appointment of counsel and the Clerk appropriately did not docket it as such. Judge Volpe
did, however, deny without prejudice Plaintiff’s earlier motion for the appointment of counsel
[doc.#37] by Order entered January 22, 2013 [doc.#39]. Thus, Judge Volpe ruled on Plaintiff’s
motion for the appointment of counsel prior to issuing his Proposed Findings and Recommended
Dispositions.