Lindsey v. Griffin et al
Filing
71
AMENDED ORDER re 70 Order: Judge Kearney's decision is affirmed and 68 Motion is denied. Lindsey's request to amend his complaint to add Corizon Medical Services as a defendant is granted. The Court orders the Clerk to prepare a summons for Corizon Medical Services. The Clerk shall deliver the summons, together with a copy of the complaint, to the U.S. Marshal for service on Humphries, Odum & Eubanks, who represents Corizon. This service is to be made without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/19/2014. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
JOSEPH LINDSEY
ADC # 132800
v.
PLAINTIFF
No. 5:14-cv-73-DPM-JTK
RORY GRIFFIN, ADC Medical Director;
CHERRY ANN McGRATH, APN Diagnostic
Unit, ADC; ANGELA STANFORD, LPN
Diagnostic Unit, ADC; SONYA PEPPERS-DAVIS,
M.D., Tucker Unit, ADC; MAPLES, Sergeant,
Security, Tucker Unit, ADC; CHARLES SCHOCK,
Orthopedic M.D., ADC; ROBERT FLOSS, Corizon
Health Care, Consultant Review Doctor; and
JANE DOE, Tucker Unit Nurse
DEFENDANTS
AMENDED ORDER
1. Lindsey appeals Judge Kearney's decision denying his motion for a
subpoena of some Health Department records. NQ 68. The decision is
affirmed because it's neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to settled law.
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a). The Court isn't responsible for tracking down Stanford's
address. Lee v. Armantrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir. 1993).
2. Lindsey's request to amend his complaint to add Corizon Medical
Services as a defendant is granted. The Court orders the Clerk to prepare a
summons for Corizon Medical Services. The Clerk shall deliver the summons,
together with a copy of the complaint attached, to the U.S. Marshal for service
on Humphries, Odum & Eubanks, who represents Corizon. This service is to
be made without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefore.
So Ordered.
//
D.P. Marshall Jr.
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?