Cooper v. Griswold et al

Filing 119

ORDER adopting 110 recommended disposition in all respects; denying 116 motion to appoint counsel; denying 117 motion for recusal and to change venue; granting 94 motion for summary judgment; dismissing the claims against Bland and Griswold with prejudice; and certifying that an in forma pauperis appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 07/19/2016. (rhm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
AUSTIN COOPER,
ADC # 078084
v.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 5:15CV00170 BSM

GRISWOLD, Assistant Nurse
Practitioner, Cummins Unit, ADC; et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The recommended disposition submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Joe J.
Volpe and plaintiff’s objections thereto have been reviewed. After carefully considering
these documents and making a de novo review of the record, the recommended disposition
is hereby adopted in all respects. In addition to his objection, plaintiff Austin Cooper has
filed three motions.
First, because this case is being dismissed, his motion to appoint counsel [Doc. No.
116] is denied. Second, Cooper’s motion for recusal and to change venue [Doc. No. 117] is
also denied. Cooper argues that this court does not grasp the severity of his condition and that
he would only be able to obtain relief in a different venue. It is impossible to know the full
extent of Cooper’s condition, yet the fact remains that, based on the record, defendants’
actions do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
Third, Cooper filed a motion to enter an exhibit as evidence [Doc. No. 18], in which
he makes a new allegation that defendant Griswold retaliated against him because he filed
a grievance. Because this allegation involves actions taken after Cooper filed his complaint,
his motion is denied. If Cooper wants to pursue this claim, he must file a new lawsuit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 94] is granted, and the
claims against defendants Bland and Griswold are dismissed with prejudice.

2.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), it is certified that an in forma pauperis
appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of July 2016.

_____________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE