Axelson v. Corizon Medical Services Inc et al
ORDER ADOPTING 125 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. Defendants' 119 Motion to Deem Admitted is denied. Defendants' 116 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Iko, McBride, Hubbard, Gardner and Corizon, Inc., are dismissed with prejudice. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this Order 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
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES
INC.; et al.,
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Partial 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
Partial 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:
Defendants’ Motion to Deem Admitted (Doc. No. 119) is DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 116) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Iko, McBride, Hubbard, Gardner and
Corizon, Inc., are DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma
pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith.1
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of June 2014.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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
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?