Brannon v. Lytle et al

Filing 87

ORDER adopting 86 Recommendation. Lytle and CCS's 64 Motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Brannon's 1983 claims against Lytle will be dismissed without prejudice for not exhausting administrative remedies. And the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brannon's medical malpractice claims against Lytle, Crowell, Moore, Bland, and CCS, Inc. Those state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice, too. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/27/2017. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
C. R. FLOYD BRANNON
ADC # 124405
v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 5:15-cv-315-DPM

JOHN 0. LYTLE, Doctor, CCS; BERNARD
G. CROWELL, Doctor, CCS; TROY MOORE,
Doctor, CCS; ESTELLA BLAND, APN,
Cummins Unit; and CCS INC.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Unopposedrecommendation,Ng86,adopted. FED.R.Crv.P. 72(b) (1983
addition to advisory committee notes). Lytle and CCS' s motion for summary
judgment, Ng 64, is granted in part and denied in part. Brannon's § 1983
claims against Lytle will be dismissed without prejudice for not exhausting
administrative remedies. And the Court declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Brannon's medical malpractice claims against Lytle, Crowell,
Moore, Bland, and CCS, Inc. Those state law claims will be dismissed without
prejudice, too. Although Dr. Moore was served only recently, Ng 83, the
motion's jurisdictional argument also reaches the claim against him. If he
chooses to do so, and if he does so within the time allowed by law, Brannon
may pursue his state law claims for medical malpractice in state court.

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge

-2-