Axelson v. Corizon Medical Services Inc et al

Filing 133

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)

Download PDF
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 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: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Deem Admitted (Doc. No. 119) is DENIED. 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 116) is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Iko, McBride, Hubbard, Gardner and Corizon, Inc., 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 would not be taken in good faith.1 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.

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?