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)

Download PDF
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

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?